Each result reported should be followed by a proper discussion. This is the place to illustrate the link between your study and the existing literature and to demonstrate your comprehensive understanding of the research topic under investigation. Interpret your data in the discussion in appropriate depth. This means that when you explain a phenomenon you must describe mechanisms that may account for the observation. If your results differ from your expectations, explain why that may have happened. If your results agree, then describe the theory that the evidence supported. It is never appropriate to simply state that the data agreed with expectations, and let it drop at that.
Generally speaking, if results deal with facts, then discussions deal with points; facts are descriptive, while points are interpretive. Effective discussion sections are similar to effective lectures, which, as Olsen and Huckin (1990) note, are based on points, rather than on facts.
Discussion should be more than summaries. They should be more theoretical, or more abstract, or more general, or more integrated with the field, or more concerned with implications or applications and, if possible, some combination of these.
Activity3-1: Reporting results v.s. Discussing results
Work in groups and discuss the differences between reporting results and discussing results.
1._______________________________________________________________.
2._______________________________________________________________.
3._______________________________________________________________.
...
Structure of Discussing Section (referring to the following outline)
Ⅰ . First paragraph: begin with a statement of the major findings of the study
A. Direct, declarative, succinct
B. Do not include data (this should be in the results section)
C. Do not refer to the study design (this should be in the methods section)
Examples:
Our results suggest that extraversion has no statistically significant relation to academic achievement.