Examples of discussion sections
An excerpt from the discussion section of a chemistry
report
Footnote
| The activity of the salivary amylase
enzyme in this experiment increased with temperature up to 37°C.
This was probably an effect on the reaction
itself, as the rate of chemical reactions generally increases as
temperature increases because there is more energy in the system
at higher temperatures (Stryer, 1995, p. 46). Most
enzymes are denatured at temperatures above 50°C (Perkins, 1964);
however, in this experiment, the activity of the amylase was highest
at 70°C. This may be
explained by the variation in temperature that is experienced in
the mouth during eating, which may require a high degree of heat-resistance
in the amylase enzyme ... |
State the major results again
Interpretation/explanation based on what is known (cite references)
unexpected result
Attempt to explain how/why the result occurred |
Adapted from Dr Wendy
Russell, Biology 103, University of Wollongong
An excerpt from the Discussion section of a psychology
report
Both the alternative hypotheses for
consensus and distinctiveness information were supported: high consensus
and high distinctiveness information creates an external attribution
while low consensus and low distinctiveness information causes an
internal attribution. Thus, when information is high in consensus
or distinctiveness an attribution is made to the situation and not
the person while for information low in either of these characteristics
the opposite is true. In terms of the consistency of the provided
information, the null hypothesis was supported: the provision of
high or low levels of information does not correspond to the attribution
made.
The results of the experiment in terms of
consistency oppose the trend suggested in the literature by researchers
such as McBeatty (1989) and Orbit et al. (1997). McBeatty suggested
consistency was the dominant feature of information that affected
the nature of the attribution made, while Orbit et al found that
consistency information had a string tie to circumstance or person-situation
attributions. The results of the content analysis of this study
did not support this finding ... By not presenting consensus, distinctiveness
and consistency information simultaneously, the present research
design has successfully avoided the criticism of ‘lacking real world
characteristics’ directed at other research testing Kelley’s covariation
theory, research such as Pike & Bewer (1992) and Fergis, Nok
& Layman (1996). Although these studies show attributions can
be made using all this information, it does not prove that they
normally are ... The design of the present experiment means ...
. |
Restatement of main findings
Reflection about the results of the present research in light of
findings reported the literature |
© Copyright
2000
Comments and questions should
be directed to Unilearning@uow.edu.au
|