Improving your Discussion

• opens with effective statement of support of hypothesis

The Discussion should start with a sentence or two in which you make a judgement as to whether your original hypothesis (from the Introduction) was supported, supported with qualifications, or not supported by the findings. To improve the opening of your Introduction, make sure your judgement is stated clearly, so that the reader can understand it. There are, generally speaking, three possible conclusions you could draw:

• the data support the hypothesis;
• the data do not support the hypothesis; or
• the data generally support the hypothesis but with qualifiers (tell what they are).

If you had trouble composing this sentence, try being straightforward about it, for example, "The hypothesis that X solution would increase in viscosity when solutions Y and Z were added was supported by the data."

• backs up statement with reference to appropriate findings

After stating the judgment about the hypothesis, you should provide specific evidence from the data in the Results to back up the judgment. The first key to improving this part of the Discussion is finding specific evidence reported in the Results that you can use to back up your judgment about your hypothesis. The second key is to describe the evidence in such a way that the reader can clearly see that there is sufficient evidence that supports your judgment about the hypothesis. Be specific. Point out specific evidence from the Results and show how that evidence contributed to your judgment about the hypothesis.

• provides sufficient and logical explanation for statement of hypothesis

You should return to the scientific concept of the lab (described in the Introduction) and use that concept as a basis for explaining your judgment of the hypothesis. Your understanding of the scientific concept may have changed by doing the lab.
Problems with the sufficiency of the explanation refer to the reader's judgment that you didn't include enough details in your explanation, that there wasn't enough of an explanation to satisfy the reader that you fully understood why the relationship between the results and hypothesis was what it was. You need to provide greater depth in your explanation. Do some brainstorming. Look again at the explanation you placed at the end of the Introduction. Jot down more details about the explanation and use those jottings to help you expand that part of the Discussion.
Problems with the logic of the explanation refer to the reader's judgment that your explanation of the support or lack of support of the hypothesis did not adhere to sound scientific reasoning. Look at the reasoning you used in the explanation. It should follow one of four basic arguments:
1. If the results fully support your hypothesis and your reasoning was basically sound, then elaborate on your reasoning by showing how the science behind the experiment provides an explanation for the results.
2. If the results fully support your hypothesis but your reasoning was not completely sound, then explain why the initial reasoning was not correct and provide the better reasoning.
3. If the results generally support the hypothesis but with qualifications, then describe those qualifications and use your reasoning as a basis for discussing why the qualifications are necessary.
4. If the results do not support your hypothesis, then explain why not; consider (1) problems with your understanding of the lab's scientific concept; (2) problems with your reasoning, and/or (3) problems with the laboratory procedure itself (if there are problems of reliability with the lab data or if you made any changes in the lab procedure, discuss these in detail, showing specifically how they could have affected the results and how the errors could have been eliminated).
You can also improve the logic of your explanation by using words that make your argument clear, such as because, since, due to the fact that, as a result, therefore, consequently, etc.

• sufficiently addresses other issues pertinent to lab

A low rating in this area means that the instructor thinks that there are other interesting issues you could have discussed about your findings. Other issues that may be appropriate to address are (1) any problems that occurred or sources of error in your lab procedure that may account for any unexpected results; (2) how your findings compare to the findings of other students in the lab and an explanation for any differences (check with the lab instructor first to make sure this is permissible); (3) suggestions for improving the lab.

From:http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/lc/lc-improvinglaprep.htm

Sample of Discussion