Writing a

Discussion/Conclusion
Writing a Discussion/Conclusion-Proper
• Bring together and use all the information in this unit

• Write a Discussion/Conclusion according to the model, using the

grammar and vocabulary learnt

• Use conventional model of the Discussion/ Conclusion and vocabulary

• Follow the model exactly, and use it to check the

Discussion/Conclusion of your work
Sample Research
• Imagine that you and your team have designed a machine which can
remove chewing gum from floors and pavements by treating the gum
chemically to transform it into powder and then remove it using
vacuum suction.
Sample Research
Introduction

• Chewing-gum removal is a significant environmental problem

• Provided factual information about the composition of chewing
gum1,2 and the way in which it sticks to the floor6
• Existing chewing-gum removal machines3,4 are unable to use suction
to remove gum without damaging the floor surface10
• Gumbo et al., claimed that it was possible to use chemicals to
dissolve chewing gum5
Sample Research
Introduction

• Designed a chewing gum removal machine (CGRM), called GumGone

• GumGone sprays a nontoxic chemical onto the gum which transforms
it to white powder
• The machine can then remove the gum using suction without
damaging the floor surface
Sample Research
Methodology

• Described the design and construction of the machine

• Compared your CGRM, GumGone, to two existing machines,
Gumsucker3 and Vacu-Gum.4
• Gave details of a set of trials which you conducted to test the
efficiency of the new CGRM and a further set of trials which showed
the effect of gum removal on the floor surface
Sample Research
Results
Sample Research
Results
Sample Research
Discussion
Model
• Gum removal technology has traditionally faced the 1. Revisiting previous
problem of achieving effective gum removal with sections,
minimal damage to floor surfaces. Previous weakness summarising/Revisiting
general or Key results

• Existing CGRMs such as Gumsucker and Vacu-Gum use

steam heat and steam injection respectively to remove Model
gum and although both are fairly effective, the resulting 4. Limitations; Current
and Future Work
staining and damage to floor surfaces, particularly Applications
carpeted floors, is often significant.
Limitations of existing
technologies
Sample Research
Discussion
Model
• In this study the design and manufacture of a novel 1. Revisiting previous
CGRM, GumGone, is presented. GumGone reduces the sections,
gum to a dry powder using a non-toxic chemical spray summarising/Revisiting
and then vacuums the residue, leaving virtually no stain general or Key results

Revisits methodology used

Model
• In trials, GumGone removed a high percentage of gum 3.
from all floor surfaces without causing floor damage. Achievement/Contributi
The floor surfaces tested included carpeted floors, on; Refining the
Implications
suggesting that this technology is likely to have
considerable commercial use Implication of the
achievement
Sample Research
Discussion
Model
• Percentage removal levels achieved using GumGone 3.
Achievement/Contributi
were consistently higher than for existing CGRMs on all on; Refining the
types of floor surface. This was particularly noticeable in Implications
the case of carpeted floor, where 79% of gum was
removed from a 400 m2 area, as opposed to a maximum
of 56% with existing machines. This represents a
dramatic increase in the percentage amount of gum
removed

Positive Achievement
Sample Research
Discussion Model
2. Mapping
• Our results confirm the theory of Gumbo et al. that (Relationship to
chemicals can be used to dissolve gum into dry powder existing research)
and make it suitable for vacuuming
How work fits into the
research ‘map’
Sample Research
Discussion
Model
• The greatest advantage over existing CGRMs, however, 3.
lies in the combination of the two technologies in a Achievement/Contributi
on; Refining the
single machine. By reducing the delay period between Implications
gum treatment and gum removal, the GumGone system
resulted in negligible staining of floor surfaces. This
represents a new approach which removes the need for
stain treatment or surface repair following gum removal

Achievement/Novelty
Sample Research
Discussion
Model
• As noted earlier, only one wattage level (400 watts of 4. Limitations; Current
vacuum suction power) was available in the GumGone and Future Work
Applications
prototype. Further work is needed to determine the
power level at which gum removal is maximised and
floor damage remains negligible

Limitations of which
should direct future
research