Student are to recognize what lab reports are and create an experiment analyzing search results from search engines based upon a chosen prompt. Students are to search, gather top results, and put them in a criteria for assessment. The grading criteria was based upon how strong the source was in the categories of Authority, Relevance, Currency, Expectancy, and Accessibility. After scores are retrieved, students are to observe results and explain thoroughly explain them.
ASSESSING OUTPUTS FROM SEARCH TOOLS WITH PROMPTS RELATING TO STEM
Moheeb M., City College of New York
KEYWORDS: search tools, search, tool, database, Google Scholar, Google, lab report, lab, report, engineering, engineer, students, research, criteria, CCNY, 3d printing, 3d, print, printing, e-waste, sustainable, sustainability, electronic waste
ABSTRACT
This experiment carries out various ways of collecting data for lab reports through researching with search tools given; archives and electronic compound libraries are present for students. Students are to gather results and analyze data, in order to get accustomed to gathering data for research. Recognizing specific texts/results assist students in building skills when researching lab reports. Results that were found were measured by criteria in order to pan out an analysis; established results were presented through the experiment with some minor flawed results as well. In future These established results would be a sign for students to acknowledge it in their future lab research. There is a better understanding to grasp how different the search tools are, considering that before the research some students may not have used a specific search tool before. Students can also recognize what they might have done wrong when using the search tool; e.g if the search prompt was too imprecise on the search tool.
INTRODUCTION
3D printing has taken the tech world into storm, with engineers to consumers creating unique pieces for lifestyle; for their own accommodation on objects, they deem desirable. Engineers use 3D printing for practical work and has now become a very notable aspect in innovation. Though, one must ask what type of materials are being used when printing? Are materials constantly processed for the use in 3D printing? We must evaluate the findings that provides information on the sustainability of materials being used in 3D Printing.
This report aims to find if recycled materials used in 3D printing is efficient and if, so can it become the norm for day-to-day printing. When reporting on this matter, the observations are expected to be that proposed recycled materials can produce innovation.
Recycled plastic has shown its ability in being able to be used in 3D printing. Although contrary to virgin plastic, it’s a diligence, due to the way the used materials body and conditions of it. The assistance that is needed is fillers for this material, which can only be produced by expensive 3D printing machines called FDM. (FDM-based additive manufacturing of recycle thermoplastic and associated composites) These findings give a closer look on if recycled supplies in engineering are durably sustainable.
- “FDM-based additive manufacturing of recycle thermoplastic and associated composites, Google database”
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The lab reports conducted by City College students are essential to gain knowledge on the essence of experimenting with subjects in the technicality aspect of literature; This gives the ability for students to identify sources which seem fit for the topic that is being studied. I am to investigate sources with the search subject, “3d printing with recycled electronic material lab report” in order to gather results which are assessed as a lab report.
A student is to collect 30 search results from 3 different search engines. The top results are taken and put into assessment through a criterion of 5. The first criteria are the relevancy of the search result, and if it pertains to topic the student is searching for. The second criteria based on the authority of the search result, and if the authors are credible in presenting the lab report. The third criteria focuses on the currency of the text, and if the lab report’s publication date is appropriate for what the researcher is looking for. The fourth criteria are the accessibility of the lab report; with issues one may have faced when trying to open the lab report, or whether it may have been behind a paywall, etc. The final criteria are the expectancy of the result given, and whether the researchers got the lab report they expected to get.
The materials used was the ASTI database, the search engine of Google, Google Scholar, and as well the Google form.
I searched my terms in each respective search engine and created the Search Phrase and Results assignment, then created the Google form to add the 15 sources I found, then added them to the Google Form, then gathered other 15 sources and added them on both the Google form Search Phrase and Results Version 2 assignment.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Search Phrase: 3d printing with recycled electronic material lab report
The expected results from this search phrase are a valid lab report that explains if e-waste is sustainable for 3d printing. If this method of 3d printing is possible, can it be the new source for materials (fully sustainable) compared to new materials. The sources must be able to focus on the materials with data shown if it is fully sustainable, and factors on the efficiency in sustainable 3d printing. Data that is produced by labs in research facilities/institutions are desired.
Table of criteria:
- Relevance: How relevant are the search results to your research question or topic? Do the search results accurately reflect what you are looking for? How well does the search result match the search query? Does it use relevant keywords, phrases or synonyms? Does it address the research question or topic?
- Authority: How credible are the sources of the search results? Are they written by experts in the field or by credible organizations? Who is the author or creator of the resource? Is the publisher or hosting platform known for academic content?
- Currency: How up-to-date are the search results? Are they recent or outdated? When was the resource created or published? Does it contain current and up-to-date information? Is the date displayed prominently?
- Accessibility: How easily can you access the full text of the search results? Are the results freely available or behind a paywall? Does it require a subscription or institutional access?
- Expectancy: Is this result what you EXPECTED or were hoping for? How closely does it match your search criteria? Is the result on-topic or more off-topic? Could you use this result if you were actively hoping to do research on your selected engineering topic or would you reject it for a better source?
The data retrieved shows that there was significance in the differences. The Google Scholar results outputted were very complex compared to the other two. The tool itself is a public source open for anyone to use. The source strictly output scholarly sources. This search tool competed with the “Database Search Tool: Mechanical Engineering”. This database was the strongest in giving lab reports in which I expected, with the ease of no duplicates, and the deep search tool that also gave access to full text. Google’s search tool would give me a the most undesired results. This was expected as with the search tool would most likely not output scholarly sources, and rather give articles. If the search tool was to produce a lab report on my search term, then it most likely is to be a short text, with the correlation to wanting a report with supporting data to conclude it as an acceptable lab report. Google’s results performed higher than what I expected it to, this is due to criteria of its currency scoring very high.
I will take the source “Fused deposition modelling approach using 3D printing and recycled industrial materials for a sustainable environment: a review” from the database with an average of the criteria being 5 and compare it to the source “Here’s how new Berkeley Lab biodegradable circuit could scrub recycled electronics, reduce e-waste” from Google”, with the average being 2.5. The excellent score was given to the database source because it provided everything in what was sought after in a lab report. The lab report is a well written, with researchers with a background, studying in polytechnical universities. The lab report is easily accessible and ties up to a very recent publish. The lab report contains very comprehensible data that is insistently sought from the search terms. The average scored Google source was shown to only be relevant through its title, and currency. The article shown is from a news source, which is a secondary source on a study coming a prestigious institution. This same source had a similar duplicate, but this time it came from the actual institution’s lab website. This source was more reliable to take from, however the source is an article on the lab report and not the lab report itself. The source was put into the criteria for testing.
With the explanations on the outcome of the research, the experiment may have also seen some faults during its process. The search prompt chosen may have been a bit niche, however the goal for the prompt was to have sources that outputted lab reports based the sustainability on material waste being used in 3D printing. Perhaps an alternative prompt to output results in this category may have been “sustainable 3d printing lab reports”. I feel confident that the initial search prompt was acceptable in my search. One thing that may have affected the search results acquired is taking some sources at different times. The first search I took the first 5 sources from all three of the two search tools, and database. I was initially known that this would have to be down twice, so when exiting out I had to do the search the prompt again; the search tool would give me around the same results from the first search. As mentioned earlier, a mildly duplicate was found in the consecutive results, which may have hindered the overall average the testing.
I feel that the grades presented for all the search tools show the results for its tiers in researching. In my own opinion the best available search tool is the CCNY Database, which provides consistent sources for academic lab reports, and having a very complex search tool, which can have vague, or niche prompts given. The Google Scholar is like the CCNY Database however slightly limited to what it may produce. The search tool however excelled tremendously. The sources may have research that is unavailable, especially if not logged onto a CCNY google account. The Google Scholar search tool differs from the database as the database can search from archives and many more electronic libraries, and limited to CUNY. The weakest search tool is Google. The search tool doesn’t seem developed to produce information on academic lab reports, rather mainly output small articles or blogs as a secondary source on the topic of the search. In future research in engineering studies, I am most likely to use the first two search tools mentioned.
| Database: Mechanical Engineering | |||
| 1. The Understanding the Processing Window of Virgin and Recycled Bio‐based Filaments for 3D Printing Applications. | AVG | 4.35 | |
| 2. 3D printing goes greener: Study of the properties of post-consumer recycled polymers for the manufacturing of engineering components. | AVG | 4.6 | |
| 3. INFLUENCE OF LOW MOLECULAR MASS POLYACRYLAMIDE OVER THE PROPERTIES OF RECYCLED PRINTING PAPER. | AVG | 1.65 | |
| 4. Glass Powder Additive on Recycled Polypropylene Filaments: A Sustainable Material in 3D Printing. | AVG | 4.7 | |
| 5. Mechanical Properties and Applications of Recycled Polycarbonate Particle Material Extrusion-Based Additive Manufacturing. | AVG | 4.15 | |
| Fused Particle Fabrication 3-D Printing: Recycled Materials’ Optimization and Mechanical Properties. | AVG | 3.8 | |
| Experimental measurement on the effects of recycled glass cullets as aggregates for construction 3D printing | AVG | 4.95 | |
| Development and characterisation of 3D printing finishing process applying recycled plastic waste | AVG | 1.55 | |
| 3D printing concrete with recycled coarse aggregates: The influence of pore structure on interlayer adhesion | AVG | 4.95 | |
| Fused deposition modelling approach using 3D printing and recycled industrial materials for a sustainable environment: a review | AVG | 5 | |
| Google Scholar | |||
| A Single Integrated 3D-Printing Process Customizes Elastic and Sustainable Triboelectric Nanogenerators for Wearable Electronics | AVG | 4.35 | |
| Material Property Testing of 3D-Printed Specimen in PLA on an Entry-Level 3D Printer | AVG | 1.5 | |
| Additive manufacturing-based recycling of laboratory waste into energy harvesting device for self-powered applications | AVG | 4.95 | |
| Criteria development for sustainable construction manufacturing in Construction Industry 4.0: Theoretical and laboratory investigations | AVG | 1.7 | |
| Fused Particle Fabrication 3-D Printing: Recycled Materials’ Optimization and Mechanical Properties | AVG | 4.7 | |
| Close-looped recycling of polylactic acid used in 3D printing: An experimental investigation and life cycle assessment | AVG | 3.95 | |
| Sustainable Polymer Composites Manufacturing through 3D Printing Technologies by Using Recycled Polymer and Filler | AVG | 4.9 | |
| On secondary recycling of ZrO -reinforced HDPE 2 filament prepared from domestic waste for possible 3-D printing of bearings | AVG | 4.95 | |
| Physical Characterization and Pre-assessment of Recycled High-Density Polyethylene as 3D Printing Material | AVG | 4.15 | |
| Transformation of E-Waste Plastics into Sustainable Filaments for 3D Printing | AVG | 4.8 | |
| 1. Recycled PP for 3D Printing: Material and Processing Optimization through Design of Experiment | AVG | 4.7 | |
| 2. Development of 3D Printing Raw Materials from Plastic Waste. A Case Study on Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate | AVG | 4.25 | |
| 3. Realization of Circular Economy of 3D Printed Plastics: A Review | AVG | 4.65 | |
| 4. FDM-based additive manufacturing of recycled thermoplastics and associated composites | AVG | 5 | |
| 5. E-Waste And Duke University’s Impact On Recyclable Electronics Via 3D Printing | AVG | 2.6 | |
| Here’s how new Berkeley Lab biodegradable circuit could scrub recycled electronics, reduce e-waste | AVG | 2.5 | |
| Print, Recycle, Repeat: Scientists Demonstrate a Biodegradable Printed Circuit | AVG | 2.85 | |
| West African lab makes 3D printers out of e-waste | AVG | 0.25 | |
| Plastic recycling in additive manufacturing: A systematic literature review and opportunities for the circular economy | AVG | 4.45 | |
| A 3D Printer in the Lab: Not Only a Toy | AVG | 4.25 |
CONCLUSION
It is apparent that students recognize the significance in this experiment. The highest search tool average (related to the criteria) was the Google Scholar search tool with 3.995, the second highest average was the way the CCNY data with 3.97, and the last highest average was the Google search tool with 3.55. When looking at these results, it can be compelling to say that Google Scholar preformed the best, however we must take in toll, for the criteria in each search tool and how it excelled or underperformed. The Google Scholar pulled out very promising results, with the criteria of Relevancy panning out half the results to have perfect scores of 5. This may correlate to the search engine producing results more relatable to the prompt. The criteria given seems to cover the overall purpose objective, however the results may always be subjective if assessed by one person. If this experiment is done again, things that may be done different are taking time and rationalizing the scores of the criteria, as well as adding 30 more results (10 for each search tool) to assess.
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
GOOGLE:
- Recycled PP for 3D Printing: Material and Processing Optimization through Design of Experiment
- Development of 3D Printing Raw Materials from Plastic Waste. A Case Study on Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate
- Realization of Circular Economy of 3D Printed Plastics: A Review
- FDM-based additive manufacturing of recycled thermoplastics and associated composites
- E-Waste And Duke University’s Impact On Recyclable Electronics Via 3D Printing
- Here’s how new Berkeley Lab biodegradable circuit could scrub recycled electronics, reduce e-waste
- Print, Recycle, Repeat: Scientists Demonstrate a Biodegradable Printed Circuit
- West African lab makes 3D printers out of e-waste
- Plastic recycling in additive manufacturing: A systematic literature review and opportunities for the circular economy
- A 3D Printer in the Lab: Not Only a Toy
GOOGLE SCHOLAR:
- A Single Integrated 3D-Printing Process Customizes Elastic and Sustainable Triboelectric Nanogenerators for Wearable Electronics
- Material Property Testing of 3D-Printed Specimen in PLA on an Entry-Level 3D Printer
