discussion in research paper sample

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on August 21, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on July 18, 2023.

The discussion section is where you delve into the meaning, importance, and relevance of your results .

It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and paper or dissertation topic , and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion. It should not be a second results section.

There are different ways to write this section, but you can focus your writing around these key elements:

• Summary : A brief recap of your key results
• Interpretations: What do your results mean?
• Implications: Why do your results matter?
• Limitations: What can’t your results tell us?
• Recommendations: Avenues for further studies or analyses

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarize your key findings, step 2: give your interpretations, step 3: discuss the implications, step 4: acknowledge the limitations, step 5: share your recommendations, discussion section example, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about discussion sections.

There are a few common mistakes to avoid when writing the discussion section of your paper.

• Don’t introduce new results: You should only discuss the data that you have already reported in your results section .
• Don’t make inflated claims: Avoid overinterpretation and speculation that isn’t directly supported by your data.
• Don’t undermine your research: The discussion of limitations should aim to strengthen your credibility, not emphasize weaknesses or failures.

Don't submit your assignments before you do this

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students. Free citation check included.

Try for free

Start this section by reiterating your research problem and concisely summarizing your major findings. To speed up the process you can use a summarizer to quickly get an overview of all important findings. Don’t just repeat all the data you have already reported—aim for a clear statement of the overall result that directly answers your main research question . This should be no more than one paragraph.

Many students struggle with the differences between a discussion section and a results section . The crux of the matter is that your results sections should present your results, and your discussion section should subjectively evaluate them. Try not to blend elements of these two sections, in order to keep your paper sharp.

• The results indicate that…
• The study demonstrates a correlation between…
• This analysis supports the theory that…
• The data suggest that…

The meaning of your results may seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for your reader, showing exactly how they answer your research question.

The form of your interpretations will depend on the type of research, but some typical approaches to interpreting the data include:

• Identifying correlations , patterns, and relationships among the data
• Discussing whether the results met your expectations or supported your hypotheses
• Contextualizing your findings within previous research and theory
• Explaining unexpected results and evaluating their significance
• Considering possible alternative explanations and making an argument for your position

You can organize your discussion around key themes, hypotheses, or research questions, following the same structure as your results section. Alternatively, you can also begin by highlighting the most significant or unexpected results.

• In line with the hypothesis…
• Contrary to the hypothesized association…
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2022) that…
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is y .

As well as giving your own interpretations, make sure to relate your results back to the scholarly work that you surveyed in the literature review . The discussion should show how your findings fit with existing knowledge, what new insights they contribute, and what consequences they have for theory or practice.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Do your results support or challenge existing theories? If they support existing theories, what new information do they contribute? If they challenge existing theories, why do you think that is?
• Are there any practical implications?

Your overall aim is to show the reader exactly what your research has contributed, and why they should care.

• These results build on existing evidence of…
• The results do not fit with the theory that…
• The experiment provides a new insight into the relationship between…
• These results should be taken into account when considering how to…
• The data contribute a clearer understanding of…
• While previous research has focused on  x , these results demonstrate that y .

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

Even the best research has its limitations. Acknowledging these is important to demonstrate your credibility. Limitations aren’t about listing your errors, but about providing an accurate picture of what can and cannot be concluded from your study.

Limitations might be due to your overall research design, specific methodological choices , or unanticipated obstacles that emerged during your research process.

Here are a few common possibilities:

• If your sample size was small or limited to a specific group of people, explain how generalizability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analyzing data, explain how these influenced the results.
• If there are potential confounding variables that you were unable to control, acknowledge the effect these may have had.

After noting the limitations, you can reiterate why the results are nonetheless valid for the purpose of answering your research question.

• The generalizability of the results is limited by…
• The reliability of these data is impacted by…
• Due to the lack of data on x , the results cannot confirm…
• The methodological choices were constrained by…
• It is beyond the scope of this study to…

Based on the discussion of your results, you can make recommendations for practical implementation or further research. Sometimes, the recommendations are saved for the conclusion .

Suggestions for further research can lead directly from the limitations. Don’t just state that more studies should be done—give concrete ideas for how future work can build on areas that your own research was unable to address.

• Further research is needed to establish…
• Future studies should take into account…
• Avenues for future research include…

If you want to know more about AI for academic writing, AI tools, or research bias, make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

Research bias

• Anchoring bias
• Halo effect
• The Baader–Meinhof phenomenon
• The placebo effect
• Nonresponse bias
• Deep learning
• Generative AI
• Machine learning
• Reinforcement learning
• Supervised vs. unsupervised learning

 (AI) Tools

• Grammar Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Text Summarizer
• AI Detector
• Plagiarism Checker
• Citation Generator

In the discussion , you explore the meaning and relevance of your research results , explaining how they fit with existing research and theory. Discuss:

• Your  interpretations : what do the results tell us?
• The  implications : why do the results matter?
• The  limitation s : what can’t the results tell us?

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

In a thesis or dissertation, the discussion is an in-depth exploration of the results, going into detail about the meaning of your findings and citing relevant sources to put them in context.

The conclusion is more shorter and more general: it concisely answers your main research question and makes recommendations based on your overall findings.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, July 18). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a literature review | guide, examples, & templates, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a results section | tips & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

• 4 minute read
• 24.5K views

Table of Contents

The discussion section in scientific manuscripts might be the last few paragraphs, but its role goes far beyond wrapping up. It’s the part of an article where scientists talk about what they found and what it means, where raw data turns into meaningful insights. Therefore, discussion is a vital component of the article.  

An excellent discussion is well-organized. We bring to you authors a classic 6-step method for writing discussion sections, with examples to illustrate the functions and specific writing logic of each step. Take a look at how you can impress journal reviewers with a concise and focused discussion section!  

Discussion frame structure   

Conventionally, a discussion section has three parts: an introductory paragraph, a few intermediate paragraphs, and a conclusion¹.  Please follow the steps below:  

1.Introduction—mention gaps in previous research¹⁻ ²

Here, you orient the reader to your study. In the first paragraph, it is advisable to mention the research gap your paper addresses.  

Example: This study investigated the cognitive effects of a meat-only diet on adults. While earlier studies have explored the impact of a carnivorous diet on physical attributes and agility, they have not explicitly addressed its influence on cognitively intense tasks involving memory and reasoning.  

2. Summarizing key findings—let your data speak ¹⁻ ²

After you have laid out the context for your study, recapitulate some of its key findings. Also, highlight key data and evidence supporting these findings.  

Example: We found that risk-taking behavior among teenagers correlates with their tendency to invest in cryptocurrencies. Risk takers in this study, as measured by the Cambridge Gambling Task, tended to have an inordinately higher proportion of their savings invested as crypto coins.  

3. Interpreting results—compare with other papers¹⁻²    

Here, you must analyze and interpret any results concerning the research question or hypothesis. How do the key findings of your study help verify or disprove the hypothesis? What practical relevance does your discovery have?  

Example: Our study suggests that higher daily caffeine intake is not associated with poor performance in major sporting events. Athletes may benefit from the cardiovascular benefits of daily caffeine intake without adversely impacting performance.    

Remember, unlike the results section, the discussion ideally focuses on locating your findings in the larger body of existing research. Hence, compare your results with those of other peer-reviewed papers.  

Example: Although Miller et al. (2020) found evidence of such political bias in a multicultural population, our findings suggest that the bias is weak or virtually non-existent among politically active citizens.  

4. Addressing limitations—their potential impact on the results¹⁻²    

Discuss the potential impact of limitations on the results. Most studies have limitations, and it is crucial to acknowledge them in the intermediary paragraphs of the discussion section. Limitations may include low sample size, suspected interference or noise in data, low effect size, etc.  

Example: This study explored a comprehensive list of adverse effects associated with the novel drug ‘X’. However, long-term studies may be needed to confirm its safety, especially regarding major cardiac events.  

5. Implications for future research—how to explore further¹⁻²    

Locate areas of your research where more investigation is needed. Concluding paragraphs of the discussion can explain what research will likely confirm your results or identify knowledge gaps your study left unaddressed.  

Example: Our study demonstrates that roads paved with the plastic-infused compound ‘Y’ are more resilient than asphalt. Future studies may explore economically feasible ways of producing compound Y in bulk.  

6. Conclusion—summarize content¹⁻²    

A good way to wind up the discussion section is by revisiting the research question mentioned in your introduction. Sign off by expressing the main findings of your study.  

Example: Recent observations suggest that the fish ‘Z’ is moving upriver in many parts of the Amazon basin. Our findings provide conclusive evidence that this phenomenon is associated with rising sea levels and climate change, not due to elevated numbers of invasive predators.  

A rigorous and concise discussion section is one of the keys to achieving an excellent paper. It serves as a critical platform for researchers to interpret and connect their findings with the broader scientific context. By detailing the results, carefully comparing them with existing research, and explaining the limitations of this study, you can effectively help reviewers and readers understand the entire research article more comprehensively and deeply¹⁻² , thereby helping your manuscript to be successfully published and gain wider dissemination.  

In addition to keeping this writing guide, you can also use Elsevier Language Services to improve the quality of your paper more deeply and comprehensively. We have a professional editing team covering multiple disciplines. With our profound disciplinary background and rich polishing experience, we can significantly optimize all paper modules including the discussion, effectively improve the fluency and rigor of your articles, and make your scientific research results consistent, with its value reflected more clearly. We are always committed to ensuring the quality of papers according to the standards of top journals, improving the publishing efficiency of scientific researchers, and helping you on the road to academic success. Check us out here !  

Type in wordcount for Standard Total: USD EUR JPY Follow this link if your manuscript is longer than 12,000 words. Upload  

References:   

• Masic, I. (2018). How to write an efficient discussion? Medical Archives , 72(3), 306. https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2018.72.306-307  
• Şanlı, Ö., Erdem, S., & Tefik, T. (2014). How to write a discussion section? Urology Research & Practice , 39(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2013.049  

Navigating “Chinglish” Errors in Academic English Writing

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

You may also like.

Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Training videos   |   Faqs

Discussion Section Examples and Writing Tips

Abstract | Introduction | Literature Review | Research question | Materials & Methods | Results | Discussion | Conclusion

In this blog, we look at how to write the discussion section of a research paper. We will go through plenty of discussion examples and understand how to construct a great discussion section for your research paper.

1. What is the purpose of the discussion section?

The discussion section is one of the most important sections of your research paper. This is where you interpret your results, highlight your contributions, and explain the value of your work to your readers.  This is one of the challenging parts to write because the author must clearly explain the significance of their results and tie everything back to the research questions.

2. How should I structure my discussion section?

Generally, the discussion section of a research paper typically contains the following parts.

Research summary It is a good idea to start this section with an overall summary of your work and highlight the main findings of your research.

Interpretation of findings You must interpret your findings clearly to your readers one by one.

Comparison with literature You must talk about how your results fit into existing research in the literature.

Implications of your work You should talk about the implications and possible benefits of your research.

Limitations You should talk about the possible limitations and shortcomings of your research

Future work And finally, you can talk about the possible future directions of your work.

3. Discussion Examples

Let’s look at some examples of the discussion section.  We will be looking at discussion examples from different fields and of different formats. We have split this section into multiple components so that it is easy for you to digest and understand.

3.1. An example of research summary in discussion

It is a good idea to start your discussion section with the summary of your work. The best way to do this will be to restate your research question, and then reminding your readers about your methods, and finally providing an overall summary of your results.

Our aims were to compare the effectiveness and user-friendliness of different storm detection software for storm tracking. On the basis of these aims, we ran multiple experiments with the same conditions using different storm detection software. Our results showed that in both speed and accuracy of data, ‘software A’ performed better than ‘software B’. _  Aims summary  _  Methodology summary  _  Results summary

This discussion example is from an engineering research paper. The authors are restating their aims first, which is to compare different types of storm-tracking software. Then, they are providing a brief summary of the methods. Here, they are testing different storm-tracking software under different conditions to see which performs the best. Then, they are finally providing their main finding which is that they found ‘software A’ better than ‘software B’.  This is a very good example of how to start the discussion section by presenting a summary of your work.

3.2. An example of result interpretation in discussion

The next step is to interpret your results. You have to explain your results clearly to your readers. Here is a discussion example that shows how to interpret your results.

The results of this study indicate significant differences between classical music and pop music in terms of their effects on memory recall and cognition. This implies that as the complexity of the music increases, so does its ability to facilitate cognitive processing. This finding aligns with the well-known “Mozart effect,” which suggests that listening to classical music can enhance cognitive function. _  Result  _  Interpretation  _   Additional evidence

The authors are saying that their results show that there is a significant difference between pop music and classical music in terms of memory recall and cognition. Now they are providing their interpretation of the findings. They think it is because there is a link between the complexity of music and cognitive processing. They are also making a reference to a well-known theory called the ‘Mozart effect’ to back up their findings. It is a nicely written passage and the author’s interpretation sounds very convincing and credible.

3.3. An example of literature comparison in discussion

The next step is to compare your results to the literature. You have to explain clearly how your findings compare with similar findings made by other researchers. Here is a discussion example where authors are providing details of papers in the literature that both support and oppose their findings.

Our analysis predicts that climate change will have a significant impact on wheat yield. This finding undermines one of the central pieces of evidence in some previous simulation studies [1-3] that suggest a negative effect of climate change on wheat yield, but the result is entirely consistent with the predictions of other research [4-5] that suggests the overall change in climate could result in increases in wheat yield. _  Result  _  Comparison with literature

The authors are saying that their results show that climate change will have a significant effect on wheat production. Then, they are saying that there are some papers in the literature that are in agreement with their findings. However, there are also many papers in the literature that disagree with their findings. This is very important. Your discussion should be two-sided, not one-sided. You should not ignore the literature that doesn’t corroborate your findings.

3.4. An example of research implications in discussion

The next step is to explain to your readers how your findings will benefit society and the research community. You have to clearly explain the value of your work to your readers. Here is a discussion example where authors explain the implications of their research.

The results contribute insights with regard to the management of wildfire events using artificial intelligence. One could easily argue that the obvious practical implication of this study is that it proposes utilizing cloud-based machine vision to detect wildfires in real-time, even before the first responders receive emergency calls. _  Your finding  _  Implications of your finding

In this paper, the authors are saying that their findings indicate that Artificial intelligence can be used to effectively manage wildfire events. Then, they are talking about the practical implications of their study. They are saying that their work has proven that machine learning can be used to detect wildfires in real-time. This is a great practical application and can save thousands of lives. As you can see, after reading this passage, you can immediately understand the value and significance of the work.

3.5. An example of limitations in discussion

It is very important that you discuss the limitations of your study. Limitations are flaws and shortcomings of your study. You have to tell your readers how your limitations might influence the outcomes and conclusions of your research. Most studies will have some form of limitation. So be honest and don’t hide your limitations. In reality, your readers and reviewers will be impressed with your paper if you are upfront about your limitations. 

Study design and small sample size are important limitations. This could have led to an overestimation of the effect. Future research should reconfirm these findings by conducting larger-scale studies. _  Limitation  _  How it might affect the results?  _   How to fix the limitation?

Here is a discussion example where the author talks about study limitations. The authors are saying that the main limitations of the study are the small sample size and weak study design. Then they explain how this might have affected their results. They are saying that it is possible that they are overestimating the actual effect they are measuring. Then finally they are telling the readers that more studies with larger sample sizes should be conducted to reconfirm the findings.

As you can see, the authors are clearly explaining three things here:

3.6. An example of future work in discussion

It is important to remember not to end your paper with limitations. Finish your paper on a positive note by telling your readers about the benefits of your research and possible future directions. Here is a discussion example where the author talks about future work.

Our study highlights useful insights about the potential of biomass as a renewable energy source. Future research can extend this research in several ways, including research on how to tackle challenges that hinder the sustainability of renewable energy sources towards climate change mitigation, such as market failures, lack of information and access to raw materials.   _  Benefits of your work  _   Future work

The authors are starting the final paragraph of the discussion section by highlighting the benefit of their work which is the use of biomass as a renewable source of energy. Then they talk about future research. They are saying that future research can focus on how to improve the sustainability of biomass production. This is a very good example of how to finish the discussion section of your paper on a positive note.

4. Frequently Asked Questions

Sometimes you will have negative or unexpected results in your paper. You have to talk about it in your discussion section. A lot of students find it difficult to write this part. The best way to handle this situation is not to look at results as either positive or negative. A result is a result, and you will always have something important and interesting to say about your findings. Just spend some time investigating what might have caused this result and tell your readers about it.

You must talk about the limitations of your work in the discussion section of the paper. One of the important qualities that the scientific community expects from a researcher is honesty and admitting when they have made a mistake. The important trick you have to learn while presenting your limitations is to present them in a constructive way rather than being too negative about them.  You must try to use positive language even when you are talking about major limitations of your work. 

If you have something exciting to say about your results or found something new that nobody else has found before, then, don’t be modest and use flat language when presenting this in the discussion. Use words like ‘break through’, ‘indisputable evidence’, ‘exciting proposition’ to increase the impact of your findings.

Important thing to remember is not to overstate your findings. If you found something really interesting but are not 100% sure, you must not mislead your readers. The best way to do this will be to use words like ‘it appears’ and ‘it seems’. This will tell the readers that there is a slight possibility that you might be wrong.

Similar Posts

Figures and Tables in Research Papers – Tips and Examples

In this blog, we will look at best practices for presenting tables and figures in your research paper.

Critical Literature Review : How to Critique a Research Article?

In this blog, we will look at how to use constructive language when critiquing other’s work in your research paper.

Introduction Paragraph Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through a few introduction paragraph examples and understand how to construct a great introduction paragraph for your research paper.

Materials and Methods Examples and Writing Tips

In this blog, we will go through many materials and methods examples and understand how to write a clear and concise method section for your research paper.

3 Costly Mistakes to Avoid in the Research Introduction

In this blog, we will discuss three common mistakes that beginner writers make while writing the research paper introduction.

Technical Terms, Notations, and Scientific Jargon in Research Papers

In this blog, we will teach you how to use specialized terminology in your research papers with some practical examples.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• 5 Share Facebook
• 7 Share Twitter
• 5 Share LinkedIn
• 10 Share Email

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• 8. The Discussion
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research. The discussion will always connect to the introduction by way of the research questions or hypotheses you posed and the literature you reviewed, but the discussion does not simply repeat or rearrange the first parts of your paper; the discussion clearly explains how your study advanced the reader's understanding of the research problem from where you left them at the end of your review of prior research.

Annesley, Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Peacock, Matthew. “Communicative Moves in the Discussion Section of Research Articles.” System 30 (December 2002): 479-497.

Importance of a Good Discussion

The discussion section is often considered the most important part of your research paper because it:

• Most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based upon a logical synthesis of the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem under investigation;
• Presents the underlying meaning of your research, notes possible implications in other areas of study, and explores possible improvements that can be made in order to further develop the concerns of your research;
• Highlights the importance of your study and how it can contribute to understanding the research problem within the field of study;
• Presents how the findings from your study revealed and helped fill gaps in the literature that had not been previously exposed or adequately described; and,
• Engages the reader in thinking critically about issues based on an evidence-based interpretation of findings; it is not governed strictly by objective reporting of information.

Annesley Thomas M. “The Discussion Section: Your Closing Argument.” Clinical Chemistry 56 (November 2010): 1671-1674; Bitchener, John and Helen Basturkmen. “Perceptions of the Difficulties of Postgraduate L2 Thesis Students Writing the Discussion Section.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5 (January 2006): 4-18; Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  General Rules

These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results :

• Do not be verbose or repetitive; be concise and make your points clearly
• Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language
• Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention]
• Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense
• If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes

II.  The Content

The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes :

• Explanation of results : Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound. If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
• References to previous research : Either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information. Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section.
• Deduction : A claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices.
• Hypothesis : A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.

III.  Organization and Structure

Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper:

• Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid. Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate].
• Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when describing the research problem in your introduction.
• Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
• Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective. The sequence of this information is important; first state the answer, then the relevant results, then cite the work of others. If appropriate, refer the reader to a figure or table to help enhance the interpretation of the data [either within the text or as an appendix].
• Regardless of where it's mentioned, a good discussion section includes analysis of any unexpected findings. This part of the discussion should begin with a description of the unanticipated finding, followed by a brief interpretation as to why you believe it appeared and, if necessary, its possible significance in relation to the overall study. If more than one unexpected finding emerged during the study, describe each of them in the order they appeared as you gathered or analyzed the data. As noted, the exception to discussing findings in the same order you described them in the results section would be to begin by highlighting the implications of a particularly unexpected or significant finding that emerged from the study, followed by a discussion of the remaining findings.
• Before concluding the discussion, identify potential limitations and weaknesses if you do not plan to do so in the conclusion of the paper. Comment on their relative importance in relation to your overall interpretation of the results and, if necessary, note how they may affect the validity of your findings. Avoid using an apologetic tone; however, be honest and self-critical [e.g., in retrospect, had you included a particular question in a survey instrument, additional data could have been revealed].
• The discussion section should end with a concise summary of the principal implications of the findings regardless of their significance. Give a brief explanation about why you believe the findings and conclusions of your study are important and how they support broader knowledge or understanding of the research problem. This can be followed by any recommendations for further research. However, do not offer recommendations which could have been easily addressed within the study. This would demonstrate to the reader that you have inadequately examined and interpreted the data.

IV.  Overall Objectives

The objectives of your discussion section should include the following: I.  Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings

Briefly reiterate the research problem or problems you are investigating and the methods you used to investigate them, then move quickly to describe the major findings of the study. You should write a direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results, usually in one paragraph.

II.  Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important

No one has thought as long and hard about your study as you have. Systematically explain the underlying meaning of your findings and state why you believe they are significant. After reading the discussion section, you want the reader to think critically about the results and why they are important. You don’t want to force the reader to go through the paper multiple times to figure out what it all means. If applicable, begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most significant or unanticipated finding first, then systematically review each finding. Otherwise, follow the general order you reported the findings presented in the results section.

III.  Relate the Findings to Similar Studies

No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for your research. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your study differs from other research about the topic. Note that any significant or unanticipated finding is often because there was no prior research to indicate the finding could occur. If there is prior research to indicate this, you need to explain why it was significant or unanticipated. IV.  Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings

It is important to remember that the purpose of research in the social sciences is to discover and not to prove . When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. This is especially important when describing the discovery of significant or unanticipated findings.

V.  Acknowledge the Study’s Limitations

It is far better for you to identify and acknowledge your study’s limitations than to have them pointed out by your professor! Note any unanswered questions or issues your study could not address and describe the generalizability of your results to other situations. If a limitation is applicable to the method chosen to gather information, then describe in detail the problems you encountered and why. VI.  Make Suggestions for Further Research

You may choose to conclude the discussion section by making suggestions for further research [as opposed to offering suggestions in the conclusion of your paper]. Although your study can offer important insights about the research problem, this is where you can address other questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or highlight hidden issues that were revealed as a result of conducting your research. You should frame your suggestions by linking the need for further research to the limitations of your study [e.g., in future studies, the survey instrument should include more questions that ask..."] or linking to critical issues revealed from the data that were not considered initially in your research.

NOTE: Besides the literature review section, the preponderance of references to sources is usually found in the discussion section . A few historical references may be helpful for perspective, but most of the references should be relatively recent and included to aid in the interpretation of your results, to support the significance of a finding, and/or to place a finding within a particular context. If a study that you cited does not support your findings, don't ignore it--clearly explain why your research findings differ from theirs.

V.  Problems to Avoid

• Do not waste time restating your results . Should you need to remind the reader of a finding to be discussed, use "bridge sentences" that relate the result to the interpretation. An example would be: “In the case of determining available housing to single women with children in rural areas of Texas, the findings suggest that access to good schools is important...," then move on to further explaining this finding and its implications.
• As noted, recommendations for further research can be included in either the discussion or conclusion of your paper, but do not repeat your recommendations in the both sections. Think about the overall narrative flow of your paper to determine where best to locate this information. However, if your findings raise a lot of new questions or issues, consider including suggestions for further research in the discussion section.
• Do not introduce new results in the discussion section. Be wary of mistaking the reiteration of a specific finding for an interpretation because it may confuse the reader. The description of findings [results section] and the interpretation of their significance [discussion section] should be distinct parts of your paper. If you choose to combine the results section and the discussion section into a single narrative, you must be clear in how you report the information discovered and your own interpretation of each finding. This approach is not recommended if you lack experience writing college-level research papers.
• Use of the first person pronoun is generally acceptable. Using first person singular pronouns can help emphasize a point or illustrate a contrasting finding. However, keep in mind that too much use of the first person can actually distract the reader from the main points [i.e., I know you're telling me this--just tell me!].

Analyzing vs. Summarizing. Department of English Writing Guide. George Mason University; Discussion. The Structure, Format, Content, and Style of a Journal-Style Scientific Paper. Department of Biology. Bates College; Hess, Dean R. "How to Write an Effective Discussion." Respiratory Care 49 (October 2004); Kretchmer, Paul. Fourteen Steps to Writing to Writing an Effective Discussion Section. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sauaia, A. et al. "The Anatomy of an Article: The Discussion Section: "How Does the Article I Read Today Change What I Will Recommend to my Patients Tomorrow?” The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 74 (June 2013): 1599-1602; Research Limitations & Future Research . Lund Research Ltd., 2012; Summary: Using it Wisely. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Schafer, Mickey S. Writing the Discussion. Writing in Psychology course syllabus. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L. A Sociology Writer's Guide . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2009.

Writing Tip

Don’t Over-Interpret the Results!

Interpretation is a subjective exercise. As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. With this in mind, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you have gathered. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less.

MacCoun, Robert J. "Biases in the Interpretation and Use of Research Results." Annual Review of Psychology 49 (February 1998): 259-287; Ward, Paulet al, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Expertise . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Another Writing Tip

Don't Write Two Results Sections!

One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself.

Azar, Beth. "Discussing Your Findings."  American Psychological Association gradPSYCH Magazine (January 2006).

Yet Another Writing Tip

Avoid Unwarranted Speculation!

The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among disadvantaged children in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design. If you feel compelled to speculate, do so in the form of describing possible implications or explaining possible impacts. Be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. Sometimes your professor will encourage you to expand your discussion of the results in this way, while others don’t care what your opinion is beyond your effort to interpret the data in relation to the research problem.

• << Previous: Using Non-Textual Elements
• Next: Limitations of the Study >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2024 8:54 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Guide to Writing the Results and Discussion Sections of a Scientific Article

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing ( Bordage, 2001 ). In addition, a research paper must be clear, concise, and effective when presenting the information in an organized structure with a logical manner ( Sandercock, 2013 ).

In this article, we will take a closer look at the results and discussion section. Composing each of these carefully with sufficient data and well-constructed arguments can help improve your paper overall.

The results section of your research paper contains a description about the main findings of your research, whereas the discussion section interprets the results for readers and provides the significance of the findings. The discussion should not repeat the results.

Let’s dive in a little deeper about how to properly, and clearly organize each part.

How to Organize the Results Section

Since your results follow your methods, you’ll want to provide information about what you discovered from the methods you used, such as your research data. In other words, what were the outcomes of the methods you used?

You may also include information about the measurement of your data, variables, treatments, and statistical analyses.

To start, organize your research data based on how important those are in relation to your research questions. This section should focus on showing major results that support or reject your research hypothesis. Include your least important data as supplemental materials when submitting to the journal.

The next step is to prioritize your research data based on importance – focusing heavily on the information that directly relates to your research questions using the subheadings.

The organization of the subheadings for the results section usually mirrors the methods section. It should follow a logical and chronological order.

Subheading organization

Subheadings within your results section are primarily going to detail major findings within each important experiment. And the first paragraph of your results section should be dedicated to your main findings (findings that answer your overall research question and lead to your conclusion) (Hofmann, 2013).

In the book “Writing in the Biological Sciences,” author Angelika Hofmann recommends you structure your results subsection paragraphs as follows:

• Experimental purpose
• Interpretation

Each subheading may contain a combination of ( Bahadoran, 2019 ; Hofmann, 2013, pg. 62-63):

• Text: to explain about the research data
• Figures: to display the research data and to show trends or relationships, for examples using graphs or gel pictures.
• Tables: to represent a large data and exact value

Decide on the best way to present your data — in the form of text, figures or tables (Hofmann, 2013).

Data or Results?

Sometimes we get confused about how to differentiate between data and results . Data are information (facts or numbers) that you collected from your research ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

Whereas, results are the texts presenting the meaning of your research data ( Bahadoran, 2019 ).

One mistake that some authors often make is to use text to direct the reader to find a specific table or figure without further explanation. This can confuse readers when they interpret data completely different from what the authors had in mind. So, you should briefly explain your data to make your information clear for the readers.

Common Elements in Figures and Tables

Figures and tables present information about your research data visually. The use of these visual elements is necessary so readers can summarize, compare, and interpret large data at a glance. You can use graphs or figures to compare groups or patterns. Whereas, tables are ideal to present large quantities of data and exact values.

Several components are needed to create your figures and tables. These elements are important to sort your data based on groups (or treatments). It will be easier for the readers to see the similarities and differences among the groups.

When presenting your research data in the form of figures and tables, organize your data based on the steps of the research leading you into a conclusion.

Common elements of the figures (Bahadoran, 2019):

• Figure number
• Figure title
• Figure legend (for example a brief title, experimental/statistical information, or definition of symbols).

Tables in the result section may contain several elements (Bahadoran, 2019):

• Table number
• Table title
• Row headings (for example groups)
• Column headings
• Row subheadings (for example categories or groups)
• Column subheadings (for example categories or variables)
• Footnotes (for example statistical analyses)

Tips to Write the Results Section

• Direct the reader to the research data and explain the meaning of the data.
• Avoid using a repetitive sentence structure to explain a new set of data.
• Write and highlight important findings in your results.
• Use the same order as the subheadings of the methods section.
• Match the results with the research questions from the introduction. Your results should answer your research questions.
• Be sure to mention the figures and tables in the body of your text.
• Make sure there is no mismatch between the table number or the figure number in text and in figure/tables.
• Only present data that support the significance of your study. You can provide additional data in tables and figures as supplementary material.

How to Organize the Discussion Section

It’s not enough to use figures and tables in your results section to convince your readers about the importance of your findings. You need to support your results section by providing more explanation in the discussion section about what you found.

In the discussion section, based on your findings, you defend the answers to your research questions and create arguments to support your conclusions.

Below is a list of questions to guide you when organizing the structure of your discussion section ( Viera et al ., 2018 ):

• What experiments did you conduct and what were the results?
• What do the results mean?
• What were the important results from your study?
• How did the results answer your research questions?
• Did your results support your hypothesis or reject your hypothesis?
• What are the variables or factors that might affect your results?
• What were the strengths and limitations of your study?
• What other published works support your findings?
• What other published works contradict your findings?
• What possible factors might cause your findings different from other findings?
• What is the significance of your research?
• What are new research questions to explore based on your findings?

Organizing the Discussion Section

The structure of the discussion section may be different from one paper to another, but it commonly has a beginning, middle-, and end- to the section.

One way to organize the structure of the discussion section is by dividing it into three parts (Ghasemi, 2019):

• The beginning: The first sentence of the first paragraph should state the importance and the new findings of your research. The first paragraph may also include answers to your research questions mentioned in your introduction section.
• The middle: The middle should contain the interpretations of the results to defend your answers, the strength of the study, the limitations of the study, and an update literature review that validates your findings.
• The end: The end concludes the study and the significance of your research.

Another possible way to organize the discussion section was proposed by Michael Docherty in British Medical Journal: is by using this structure ( Docherty, 1999 ):

• Discussion of important findings
• Comparison of your results with other published works
• Include the strengths and limitations of the study
• Conclusion and possible implications of your study, including the significance of your study – address why and how is it meaningful
• Future research questions based on your findings

Finally, a last option is structuring your discussion this way (Hofmann, 2013, pg. 104):

• First Paragraph: Provide an interpretation based on your key findings. Then support your interpretation with evidence.
• Secondary results
• Limitations
• Unexpected findings
• Comparisons to previous publications
• Last Paragraph: The last paragraph should provide a summarization (conclusion) along with detailing the significance, implications and potential next steps.

Remember, at the heart of the discussion section is presenting an interpretation of your major findings.

Tips to Write the Discussion Section

• Highlight the significance of your findings
• Mention how the study will fill a gap in knowledge.
• Indicate the implication of your research.
• Avoid generalizing, misinterpreting your results, drawing a conclusion with no supportive findings from your results.

Aggarwal, R., & Sahni, P. (2018). The Results Section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 21-38): Springer.

Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Zadeh-Vakili, A., Hosseinpanah, F., & Ghasemi, A. (2019). The principles of biomedical scientific writing: Results. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(2).

Bordage, G. (2001). Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Academic medicine, 76(9), 889-896.

Cals, J. W., & Kotz, D. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part VI: discussion. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(10), 1064.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers: Much the same as that for structuring abstracts. In: British Medical Journal Publishing Group.

Faber, J. (2017). Writing scientific manuscripts: most common mistakes. Dental press journal of orthodontics, 22(5), 113-117.

Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2018). The discussion section. In Reporting and Publishing Research in the Biomedical Sciences (pp. 39-48): Springer.

Ghasemi, A., Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Hosseinpanah, F., Shiva, N., & Zadeh-Vakili, A. (2019). The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Discussion. International journal of endocrinology and metabolism, 17(3).

Hofmann, A. H. (2013). Writing in the biological sciences: a comprehensive resource for scientific communication . New York: Oxford University Press.

Kotz, D., & Cals, J. W. (2013). Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part V: results. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 66(9), 945.

Mack, C. (2014). How to Write a Good Scientific Paper: Structure and Organization. Journal of Micro/ Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 13. doi:10.1117/1.JMM.13.4.040101

Moore, A. (2016). What's in a Discussion section? Exploiting 2‐dimensionality in the online world…. Bioessays, 38(12), 1185-1185.

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2013). Scientific writing: easy when you know how: John Wiley & Sons.

Sandercock, P. M. L. (2012). How to write and publish a scientific article. Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, 45(1), 1-5.

Teo, E. K. (2016). Effective Medical Writing: The Write Way to Get Published. Singapore Medical Journal, 57(9), 523-523. doi:10.11622/smedj.2016156

Van Way III, C. W. (2007). Writing a scientific paper. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 22(6), 636-640.

Vieira, R. F., Lima, R. C. d., & Mizubuti, E. S. G. (2019). How to write the discussion section of a scientific article. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 41.

Related Articles

A quality research paper has both the qualities of in-depth research and good writing (Bordage, 200...

How to Survive and Complete a Thesis or a Dissertation

Writing a thesis or a dissertation can be a challenging process for many graduate students. There ar...

12 Ways to Dramatically Improve your Research Manuscript Title and Abstract

The first thing a person doing literary research will see is a research publication title. After tha...

15 Laboratory Notebook Tips to Help with your Research Manuscript

Your lab notebook is a foundation to your research manuscript. It serves almost as a rudimentary dra...

Join our list to receive promos and articles.

• Competent Cells
• Lab Startup
• Z')" data-type="collection" title="Products A->Z" target="_self" href="/collection/products-a-to-z">Products A->Z
• GoldBio Resources
• GoldBio Sales Team
• GoldBio Distributors
• Duchefa Direct
• Sign up for Promos
• Terms & Conditions
• ISO Certification
• Agarose Resins
• Antibiotics & Selection
• Biochemical Reagents
• Bioluminescence
• Buffers & Reagents
• Cell Culture
• Cloning & Induction
• Competent Cells and Transformation
• Detergents & Membrane Agents
• DNA Amplification
• Enzymes, Inhibitors & Substrates
• Growth Factors and Cytokines
• Lab Tools & Accessories
• Plant Research and Reagents
• Protein Research & Analysis
• Protein Expression & Purification
• Reducing Agents

How to Write the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper analyzes and interprets the findings, provides context, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future research directions.

Updated on September 15, 2023

Structure your discussion section right, and you’ll be cited more often while doing a greater service to the scientific community. So, what actually goes into the discussion section? And how do you write it?

The discussion section of your research paper is where you let the reader know how your study is positioned in the literature, what to take away from your paper, and how your work helps them. It can also include your conclusions and suggestions for future studies.

First, we’ll define all the parts of your discussion paper, and then look into how to write a strong, effective discussion section for your paper or manuscript.

Discussion section: what is it, what it does

The discussion section comes later in your paper, following the introduction, methods, and results. The discussion sets up your study’s conclusions. Its main goals are to present, interpret, and provide a context for your results.

What is it?

The discussion section provides an analysis and interpretation of the findings, compares them with previous studies, identifies limitations, and suggests future directions for research.

This section combines information from the preceding parts of your paper into a coherent story. By this point, the reader already knows why you did your study (introduction), how you did it (methods), and what happened (results). In the discussion, you’ll help the reader connect the ideas from these sections.

Why is it necessary?

The discussion provides context and interpretations for the results. It also answers the questions posed in the introduction. While the results section describes your findings, the discussion explains what they say. This is also where you can describe the impact or implications of your research.

Adds context for your results

Most research studies aim to answer a question, replicate a finding, or address limitations in the literature. These goals are first described in the introduction. However, in the discussion section, the author can refer back to them to explain how the study's objective was achieved. 

Shows what your results actually mean and real-world implications

The discussion can also describe the effect of your findings on research or practice. How are your results significant for readers, other researchers, or policymakers?

What to include in your discussion (in the correct order)

A complete and effective discussion section should at least touch on the points described below.

Summary of key findings

The discussion should begin with a brief factual summary of the results. Concisely overview the main results you obtained.

Begin with key findings with supporting evidence

Your results section described a list of findings, but what message do they send when you look at them all together?

Your findings were detailed in the results section, so there’s no need to repeat them here, but do provide at least a few highlights. This will help refresh the reader’s memory and help them focus on the big picture.

Read the first paragraph of the discussion section in this article (PDF) for an example of how to start this part of your paper. Notice how the authors break down their results and follow each description sentence with an explanation of why each finding is relevant. 

State clearly and concisely

Following a clear and direct writing style is especially important in the discussion section. After all, this is where you will make some of the most impactful points in your paper. While the results section often contains technical vocabulary, such as statistical terms, the discussion section lets you describe your findings more clearly. 

Interpretation of results

Once you’ve given your reader an overview of your results, you need to interpret those results. In other words, what do your results mean? Discuss the findings’ implications and significance in relation to your research question or hypothesis.

Analyze and interpret your findings

Look into your findings and explore what’s behind them or what may have caused them. If your introduction cited theories or studies that could explain your findings, use these sources as a basis to discuss your results.

For example, look at the second paragraph in the discussion section of this article on waggling honey bees. Here, the authors explore their results based on information from the literature.

Unexpected or contradictory results

Sometimes, your findings are not what you expect. Here’s where you describe this and try to find a reason for it. Could it be because of the method you used? Does it have something to do with the variables analyzed? Comparing your methods with those of other similar studies can help with this task.

Context and comparison with previous work

Refer to related studies to place your research in a larger context and the literature. Compare and contrast your findings with existing literature, highlighting similarities, differences, and/or contradictions.

How your work compares or contrasts with previous work

Studies with similar findings to yours can be cited to show the strength of your findings. Information from these studies can also be used to help explain your results. Differences between your findings and others in the literature can also be discussed here. 

How to divide this section into subsections

If you have more than one objective in your study or many key findings, you can dedicate a separate section to each of these. Here’s an example of this approach. You can see that the discussion section is divided into topics and even has a separate heading for each of them. 

Limitations

Many journals require you to include the limitations of your study in the discussion. Even if they don’t, there are good reasons to mention these in your paper.

Why limitations don’t have a negative connotation

A study’s limitations are points to be improved upon in future research. While some of these may be flaws in your method, many may be due to factors you couldn’t predict.

Examples include time constraints or small sample sizes. Pointing this out will help future researchers avoid or address these issues. This part of the discussion can also include any attempts you have made to reduce the impact of these limitations, as in this study .

How limitations add to a researcher's credibility

Pointing out the limitations of your study demonstrates transparency. It also shows that you know your methods well and can conduct a critical assessment of them.  

Implications and significance

The final paragraph of the discussion section should contain the take-home messages for your study. It can also cite the “strong points” of your study, to contrast with the limitations section.

Restate your hypothesis

Remind the reader what your hypothesis was before you conducted the study. 

How was it proven or disproven?

Identify your main findings and describe how they relate to your hypothesis.

How your results contribute to the literature

Were you able to answer your research question? Or address a gap in the literature?

Future implications of your research

Describe the impact that your results may have on the topic of study. Your results may show, for instance, that there are still limitations in the literature for future studies to address. There may be a need for studies that extend your findings in a specific way. You also may need additional research to corroborate your findings. 

Sample discussion section

This fictitious example covers all the aspects discussed above. Your actual discussion section will probably be much longer, but you can read this to get an idea of everything your discussion should cover.

Our results showed that the presence of cats in a household is associated with higher levels of perceived happiness by its human occupants. These findings support our hypothesis and demonstrate the association between pet ownership and well-being. 

The present findings align with those of Bao and Schreer (2016) and Hardie et al. (2023), who observed greater life satisfaction in pet owners relative to non-owners. Although the present study did not directly evaluate life satisfaction, this factor may explain the association between happiness and cat ownership observed in our sample.

Our findings must be interpreted in light of some limitations, such as the focus on cat ownership only rather than pets as a whole. This may limit the generalizability of our results.

Nevertheless, this study had several strengths. These include its strict exclusion criteria and use of a standardized assessment instrument to investigate the relationships between pets and owners. These attributes bolster the accuracy of our results and reduce the influence of confounding factors, increasing the strength of our conclusions. Future studies may examine the factors that mediate the association between pet ownership and happiness to better comprehend this phenomenon.

This brief discussion begins with a quick summary of the results and hypothesis. The next paragraph cites previous research and compares its findings to those of this study. Information from previous studies is also used to help interpret the findings. After discussing the results of the study, some limitations are pointed out. The paper also explains why these limitations may influence the interpretation of results. Then, final conclusions are drawn based on the study, and directions for future research are suggested.

How to make your discussion flow naturally

If you find writing in scientific English challenging, the discussion and conclusions are often the hardest parts of the paper to write. That’s because you’re not just listing up studies, methods, and outcomes. You’re actually expressing your thoughts and interpretations in words.

• How formal should it be?
• What words should you use, or not use?
• How do you meet strict word limits, or make it longer and more informative?

Always give it your best, but sometimes a helping hand can, well, help. Getting a professional edit can help clarify your work’s importance while improving the English used to explain it. When readers know the value of your work, they’ll cite it. We’ll assign your study to an expert editor knowledgeable in your area of research. Their work will clarify your discussion, helping it to tell your story. Find out more about AJE Editing.

Adam Goulston, PsyD, MS, MBA, MISD, ELS

Science Marketing Consultant

See our "Privacy Policy"

Ensure your structure and ideas are consistent and clearly communicated

Pair your Premium Editing with our add-on service Presubmission Review for an overall assessment of your manuscript.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Discussion Section for a Research Paper

We’ve talked about several useful writing tips that authors should consider while drafting or editing their research papers. In particular, we’ve focused on  figures and legends , as well as the Introduction ,  Methods , and  Results . Now that we’ve addressed the more technical portions of your journal manuscript, let’s turn to the analytical segments of your research article. In this article, we’ll provide tips on how to write a strong Discussion section that best portrays the significance of your research contributions.

What is the Discussion section of a research paper?

In a nutshell,  your Discussion fulfills the promise you made to readers in your Introduction . At the beginning of your paper, you tell us why we should care about your research. You then guide us through a series of intricate images and graphs that capture all the relevant data you collected during your research. We may be dazzled and impressed at first, but none of that matters if you deliver an anti-climactic conclusion in the Discussion section!

Are you feeling pressured? Don’t worry. To be honest, you will edit the Discussion section of your manuscript numerous times. After all, in as little as one to two paragraphs ( Nature ‘s suggestion  based on their 3,000-word main body text limit), you have to explain how your research moves us from point A (issues you raise in the Introduction) to point B (our new understanding of these matters). You must also recommend how we might get to point C (i.e., identify what you think is the next direction for research in this field). That’s a lot to say in two paragraphs!

So, how do you do that? Let’s take a closer look.

What should I include in the Discussion section?

As we stated above, the goal of your Discussion section is to  answer the questions you raise in your Introduction by using the results you collected during your research . The content you include in the Discussions segment should include the following information:

• Remind us why we should be interested in this research project.
• Describe the nature of the knowledge gap you were trying to fill using the results of your study.
• Don’t repeat your Introduction. Instead, focus on why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place.
• Mainly, you want to remind us of how your research will increase our knowledge base and inspire others to conduct further research.
• Clearly tell us what that piece of missing knowledge was.
• Answer each of the questions you asked in your Introduction and explain how your results support those conclusions.
• Make sure to factor in all results relevant to the questions (even if those results were not statistically significant).
• Focus on the significance of the most noteworthy results.
• If conflicting inferences can be drawn from your results, evaluate the merits of all of them.
• Don’t rehash what you said earlier in the Results section. Rather, discuss your findings in the context of answering your hypothesis. Instead of making statements like “[The first result] was this…,” say, “[The first result] suggests [conclusion].”
• Do your conclusions line up with existing literature?
• Discuss whether your findings agree with current knowledge and expectations.
• Keep in mind good persuasive argument skills, such as explaining the strengths of your arguments and highlighting the weaknesses of contrary opinions.
• If you discovered something unexpected, offer reasons. If your conclusions aren’t aligned with current literature, explain.
• Address any limitations of your study and how relevant they are to interpreting your results and validating your findings.
• Make sure to acknowledge any weaknesses in your conclusions and suggest room for further research concerning that aspect of your analysis.
• Make sure your suggestions aren’t ones that should have been conducted during your research! Doing so might raise questions about your initial research design and protocols.
• Similarly, maintain a critical but unapologetic tone. You want to instill confidence in your readers that you have thoroughly examined your results and have objectively assessed them in a way that would benefit the scientific community’s desire to expand our knowledge base.
• Recommend next steps.
• Your suggestions should inspire other researchers to conduct follow-up studies to build upon the knowledge you have shared with them.
• Keep the list short (no more than two).

How to Write the Discussion Section

The above list of what to include in the Discussion section gives an overall idea of what you need to focus on throughout the section. Below are some tips and general suggestions about the technical aspects of writing and organization that you might find useful as you draft or revise the contents we’ve outlined above.

Technical writing elements

• Embrace active voice because it eliminates the awkward phrasing and wordiness that accompanies passive voice.
• Use the present tense, which should also be employed in the Introduction.
• Sprinkle with first person pronouns if needed, but generally, avoid it. We want to focus on your findings.
• Maintain an objective and analytical tone.

Discussion section organization

• Keep the same flow across the Results, Methods, and Discussion sections.
• We develop a rhythm as we read and parallel structures facilitate our comprehension. When you organize information the same way in each of these related parts of your journal manuscript, we can quickly see how a certain result was interpreted and quickly verify the particular methods used to produce that result.
• Notice how using parallel structure will eliminate extra narration in the Discussion part since we can anticipate the flow of your ideas based on what we read in the Results segment. Reducing wordiness is important when you only have a few paragraphs to devote to the Discussion section!
• Within each subpart of a Discussion, the information should flow as follows: (A) conclusion first, (B) relevant results and how they relate to that conclusion and (C) relevant literature.
• End with a concise summary explaining the big-picture impact of your study on our understanding of the subject matter. At the beginning of your Discussion section, you stated why  this  particular study was needed to fill the gap you noticed and why that gap needed filling in the first place. Now, it is time to end with “how your research filled that gap.”

Discussion Part 1: Summarizing Key Findings

Begin the Discussion section by restating your  statement of the problem  and briefly summarizing the major results. Do not simply repeat your findings. Rather, try to create a concise statement of the main results that directly answer the central research question that you stated in the Introduction section . This content should not be longer than one paragraph in length.

Many researchers struggle with understanding the precise differences between a Discussion section and a Results section . The most important thing to remember here is that your Discussion section should subjectively evaluate the findings presented in the Results section, and in relatively the same order. Keep these sections distinct by making sure that you do not repeat the findings without providing an interpretation.

Phrase examples: Summarizing the results

• The findings indicate that …
• These results suggest a correlation between A and B …
• The data present here suggest that …
• An interpretation of the findings reveals a connection between…

Discussion Part 2: Interpreting the Findings

What do the results mean? It may seem obvious to you, but simply looking at the figures in the Results section will not necessarily convey to readers the importance of the findings in answering your research questions.

The exact structure of interpretations depends on the type of research being conducted. Here are some common approaches to interpreting data:

• Identifying correlations and relationships in the findings
• Explaining whether the results confirm or undermine your research hypothesis
• Giving the findings context within the history of similar research studies
• Discussing unexpected results and analyzing their significance to your study or general research
• Offering alternative explanations and arguing for your position

Organize the Discussion section around key arguments, themes, hypotheses, or research questions or problems. Again, make sure to follow the same order as you did in the Results section.

Discussion Part 3: Discussing the Implications

In addition to providing your own interpretations, show how your results fit into the wider scholarly literature you surveyed in the  literature review section. This section is called the implications of the study . Show where and how these results fit into existing knowledge, what additional insights they contribute, and any possible consequences that might arise from this knowledge, both in the specific research topic and in the wider scientific domain.

Questions to ask yourself when dealing with potential implications:

• Do your findings fall in line with existing theories, or do they challenge these theories or findings? What new information do they contribute to the literature, if any? How exactly do these findings impact or conflict with existing theories or models?
• What are the practical implications on actual subjects or demographics?
• What are the methodological implications for similar studies conducted either in the past or future?

Your purpose in giving the implications is to spell out exactly what your study has contributed and why researchers and other readers should be interested.

Phrase examples: Discussing the implications of the research

• These results confirm the existing evidence in X studies…
• The results are not in line with the foregoing theory that…
• This experiment provides new insights into the connection between…
• These findings present a more nuanced understanding of…
• While previous studies have focused on X, these results demonstrate that Y.

Step 4: Acknowledging the limitations

All research has study limitations of one sort or another. Acknowledging limitations in methodology or approach helps strengthen your credibility as a researcher. Study limitations are not simply a list of mistakes made in the study. Rather, limitations help provide a more detailed picture of what can or cannot be concluded from your findings. In essence, they help temper and qualify the study implications you listed previously.

Study limitations can relate to research design, specific methodological or material choices, or unexpected issues that emerged while you conducted the research. Mention only those limitations directly relate to your research questions, and explain what impact these limitations had on how your study was conducted and the validity of any interpretations.

Possible types of study limitations:

• Insufficient sample size for statistical measurements
• Lack of previous research studies on the topic
• Methods/instruments/techniques used to collect the data
• Limited access to data
• Time constraints in properly preparing and executing the study

After discussing the study limitations, you can also stress that your results are still valid. Give some specific reasons why the limitations do not necessarily handicap your study or narrow its scope.

Phrase examples: Limitations sentence beginners

• “There may be some possible limitations in this study.”
• “The findings of this study have to be seen in light of some limitations.”
•  “The first limitation is the…The second limitation concerns the…”
•  “The empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.”
• “This research, however, is subject to several limitations.”
• “The primary limitation to the generalization of these results is…”
• “Nonetheless, these results must be interpreted with caution and a number of limitations should be borne in mind.”

Discussion Part 5: Giving Recommendations for Further Research

Based on your interpretation and discussion of the findings, your recommendations can include practical changes to the study or specific further research to be conducted to clarify the research questions. Recommendations are often listed in a separate Conclusion section , but often this is just the final paragraph of the Discussion section.

Suggestions for further research often stem directly from the limitations outlined. Rather than simply stating that “further research should be conducted,” provide concrete specifics for how future can help answer questions that your research could not.

Phrase examples: Recommendation sentence beginners

• Further research is needed to establish …
• There is abundant space for further progress in analyzing…
• A further study with more focus on X should be done to investigate…
• Further studies of X that account for these variables must be undertaken.

Consider Receiving Professional Language Editing

As you edit or draft your research manuscript, we hope that you implement these guidelines to produce a more effective Discussion section. And after completing your draft, don’t forget to submit your work to a professional proofreading and English editing service like Wordvice, including our manuscript editing service for  paper editing , cover letter editing , SOP editing , and personal statement proofreading services. Language editors not only proofread and correct errors in grammar, punctuation, mechanics, and formatting but also improve terms and revise phrases so they read more naturally. Wordvice is an industry leader in providing high-quality revision for all types of academic documents.

For additional information about how to write a strong research paper, make sure to check out our full  research writing series !

Wordvice Writing Resources

• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction 
• Which Verb Tenses to Use in a Research Paper
• How to Write an Abstract for a Research Paper
• How to Write a Research Paper Title
• Useful Phrases for Academic Writing
• Common Transition Terms in Academic Papers
• Active and Passive Voice in Research Papers
• 100+ Verbs That Will Make Your Research Writing Amazing
• Tips for Paraphrasing in Research Papers

Additional Academic Resources

•   Guide for Authors.  (Elsevier)
•  How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper.  (Bates College)
•   Structure of a Research Paper.  (University of Minnesota Biomedical Library)
•   How to Choose a Target Journal  (Springer)
•   How to Write Figures and Tables  (UNC Writing Center)

• Research Paper Guides
• Basics of Research Paper Writing

How to Write a Discussion Section: Writing Guide

• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

The discussion section of a research paper is where the author analyzes and explains the importance of the study's results. It presents the conclusions drawn from the study, compares them to previous research, and addresses any potential limitations or weaknesses. The discussion section should also suggest areas for future research.

Everything is not that complicated if you know where to find the required information. We’ll tell you everything there is to know about writing your discussion. Our easy guide covers all important bits, including research questions and your research results. Do you know how all enumerated events are connected? Well, you will after reading this guide we’ve prepared for you!

What Is in the Discussion Section of a Research Paper

The discussion section of a research paper can be viewed as something similar to the conclusion of your paper. But not literal, of course. It’s an ultimate section where you can talk about the findings of your study. Think about these questions when writing:

• Did you answer all of the promised research questions?
• Did you mention why your work matters?
• What are your findings, and why should anyone even care?
• Does your study have a literature review?

So, answer your questions, provide proof, and don’t forget about your promises from the introduction. 

How to Write a Discussion Section in 5 Steps

How to write the discussion section of a research paper is something everyone googles eventually. It's just life. But why not make everything easier? In brief, this section we’re talking about must include all following parts:

• Answers for research questions
• Literature review
• Results of the work
• Limitations of one’s study
• Overall conclusion

Indeed, all those parts may confuse anyone. So by looking at our guide, you'll save yourself some hassle.  P.S. All our steps are easy and explained in detail! But if you are looking for the most efficient solution, consider using professional help. Leave your “ write my research paper for me ” order at StudyCrumb and get a customized study tailored to your requirements.

Step 1. Start Strong: Discussion Section of a Research Paper

First and foremost, how to start the discussion section of a research paper? Here’s what you should definitely consider before settling down to start writing:

• All essays or papers must begin strong. All readers will not wait for any writer to get to the point. We advise summarizing the paper's main findings.
• Moreover, you should relate both discussion and literature review to what you have discovered. Mentioning that would be a plus too.
• Make sure that an introduction or start per se is clear and concise. Word count might be needed for school. But any paper should be understandable and not too diluted.

Step 2. Answer the Questions in Your Discussion Section of a Research Paper

Writing the discussion section of a research paper also involves mentioning your questions. Remember that in your introduction, you have promised your readers to answer certain questions. Well, now it’s a perfect time to finally give the awaited answer. You need to explain all possible correlations between your findings, research questions, and literature proposed. You already had hypotheses. So were they correct, or maybe you want to propose certain corrections? Section’s main goal is to avoid open ends. It’s not a story or a fairytale with an intriguing ending. If you have several questions, you must answer them. As simple as that.

Step 3. Relate Your Results in a Discussion Section

Writing a discussion section of a research paper also requires any writer to explain their results. You will undoubtedly include an impactful literature review. However, your readers should not just try and struggle with understanding what are some specific relationships behind previous studies and your results.  Your results should sound something like: “This guy in their paper discovered that apples are green. Nevertheless, I have proven via experimentation and research that apples are actually red.” Please, don’t take these results directly. It’s just an initial hypothesis. But what you should definitely remember is any practical implications of your study. Why does it matter and how can anyone use it? That’s the most crucial question.

Step 4. Describe the Limitations in Your Discussion Section

Discussion section of a research paper isn’t limitless. What does that mean? Essentially, it means that you also have to discuss any limitations of your study. Maybe you had some methodological inconsistencies. Possibly, there are no particular theories or not enough information for you to be entirely confident in one’s conclusions.  You might say that an available source of literature you have studied does not focus on one’s issue. That’s why one’s main limitation is theoretical. However, keep in mind that your limitations must possess a certain degree of relevancy. You can just say that you haven’t found enough books. Your information must be truthful to research.

Step 5. Conclude Your Discussion Section With Recommendations

Your last step when you write a discussion section in a paper is its conclusion, like in any other academic work. Writer’s conclusion must be as strong as their starting point of the overall work. Check out our brief list of things to know about the conclusion in research paper :

• It must present its scientific relevance and importance of your work.
• It should include different implications of your research.
• It should not, however, discuss anything new or things that you have not mentioned before.
• Leave no open questions and carefully complete the work without them.

Discussion Section of a Research Paper Example

All the best example discussion sections of a research paper will be written according to our brief guide. Don’t forget that you need to state your findings and underline the importance of your work. An undoubtedly big part of one’s discussion will definitely be answering and explaining the research questions. In other words, you’ll already have all the knowledge you have so carefully gathered. Our last step for you is to recollect and wrap up your paper. But we’re sure you’ll succeed!

How to Write a Discussion Section: Final Thoughts

Today we have covered how to write a discussion section. That was quite a brief journey, wasn’t it? Just to remind you to focus on these things:

• Importance of your study.
• Summary of the information you have gathered.
• Main findings and conclusions.
• Answers to all research questions without an open end.
• Correlation between literature review and your results.

But, wait, this guide is not the only thing we can do. Looking for how to write an abstract for a research paper  for example? We have such a blog and much more on our platform.

Our academic writing service is just a click away. We are proud to say that our writers are professionals in their fields. Buy a research paper and our experts can provide prompt solutions without compromising the quality.

Discussion Section of a Research Paper: Frequently Asked Questions

1. how long should the discussion section of a research paper be.

Our discussion section of a research paper should not be longer than other sections. So try to keep it short but as informative as possible. It usually contains around 6-7 paragraphs in length. It is enough to briefly summarize all the important data and not to drag it.

2. What's the difference between the discussion and the results?

The difference between discussion and results is very simple and easy to understand. The results only report your main findings. You stated what you have found and how you have done that. In contrast, one’s discussion mentions your findings and explains how they relate to other literature, research questions, and one’s hypothesis. Therefore, it is not only a report but an efficient as well as proper explanation.

3. What's the difference between a discussion and a conclusion?

The difference between discussion and conclusion is also quite easy. Conclusion is a brief summary of all the findings and results. Still, our favorite discussion section interprets and explains your main results. It is an important but more lengthy and wordy part. Besides, it uses extra literature for references.

4. What is the purpose of the discussion section?

The primary purpose of a discussion section is to interpret and describe all your interesting findings. Therefore, you should state what you have learned, whether your hypothesis was correct and how your results can be explained using other sources. If this section is clear to readers, our congratulations as you have succeeded.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

How to Start a Discussion Section in Research? [with Examples]

The examples below are from 72,017 full-text PubMed research papers that I analyzed in order to explore common ways to start writing the Discussion section.

Research papers included in this analysis were selected at random from those uploaded to PubMed Central between the years 2016 and 2021. Note that I used the BioC API to download the data (see the References section below).

Examples of how to start writing the Discussion section

In the Discussion section, you should explain the meaning of your results, their importance, and implications. [for more information, see: How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide ]

The Discussion section can:

1. Start by restating the study objective

“ The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between muscle synergies and motion primitives of the upper limb motions.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ The main objective of this study was to identify trajectories of autonomy.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In the present study, we investigated the whole brain regional homogeneity in patients with melancholic MDD and non-melancholic MDD at rest . “ Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

2. Start by mentioning the main finding

“ We found that autocracy and democracy have acted as peaks in an evolutionary landscape of possible modes of institutional arrangements.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In this study, we demonstrated that the neural mechanisms of rhythmic movements and skilled movements are similar.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ The results of this study show that older adults are a diverse group concerning their activities on the Internet.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

3. Start by pointing out the strength of the study

“ To our knowledge, this investigation is by far the largest epidemiological study employing real-time PCR to study periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ This is the first human subject research using the endoscopic hemoglobin oxygen saturation imaging technology for patients with aero-digestive tract cancers or adenomas.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

“ In this work, we introduced a new real-time flow imaging method and systematically demonstrated its effectiveness with both flow phantom experiments and in vivo experiments.” Taken from the Discussion section of this article on PubMed

Most used words at the start of the Discussion

Here are the top 10 phrases used to start a discussion section in our dataset:

• Comeau DC, Wei CH, Islamaj Doğan R, and Lu Z. PMC text mining subset in BioC: about 3 million full text articles and growing,  Bioinformatics , btz070, 2019.

Further reading

• How Long Should the Discussion Section Be? Data from 61,517 Examples
• How to Write & Publish a Research Paper: Step-by-Step Guide
• “I” & “We” in Academic Writing: Examples from 9,830 Studies

• Langson Library
• Science Library
• Grunigen Medical Library
• Law Library
• Connect From Off-Campus
• Accessibility
• Gateway Study Center

Email this link

Writing a scientific paper.

• Writing a lab report
• INTRODUCTION

Writing a "good" discussion section

"discussion and conclusions checklist" from: how to write a good scientific paper. chris a. mack. spie. 2018., peer review.

• LITERATURE CITED
• Bibliography of guides to scientific writing and presenting
• Presentations
• Lab Report Writing Guides on the Web

This is is usually the hardest section to write. You are trying to bring out the true meaning of your data without being too long. Do not use words to conceal your facts or reasoning. Also do not repeat your results, this is a discussion.

• Present principles, relationships and generalizations shown by the results
• Point out exceptions or lack of correlations. Define why you think this is so.
• Show how your results agree or disagree with previously published works
• Discuss the theoretical implications of your work as well as practical applications
• State your conclusions clearly. Summarize your evidence for each conclusion.
• Discuss the significance of the results
•  Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained.
• Typical stages in the discussion: summarizing the results, discussing whether results are expected or unexpected, comparing these results to previous work, interpreting and explaining the results (often by comparison to a theory or model), and hypothesizing about their generality.
• Discuss any problems or shortcomings encountered during the course of the work.
• Discuss possible alternate explanations for the results.
• Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed; presenting discussion that does not relate to any of the results; presenting results and discussion in chronological order rather than logical order; ignoring results that do not support the conclusions; drawing conclusions from results without logical arguments to back them up. 

CONCLUSIONS

• Provide a very brief summary of the Results and Discussion.
• Emphasize the implications of the findings, explaining how the work is significant and providing the key message(s) the author wishes to convey.
• Provide the most general claims that can be supported by the evidence.
• Provide a future perspective on the work.
• Avoid: repeating the abstract; repeating background information from the Introduction; introducing new evidence or new arguments not found in the Results and Discussion; repeating the arguments made in the Results and Discussion; failing to address all of the research questions set out in the Introduction. 

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I COMPLETE MY PAPER?

 The peer review process is the quality control step in the publication of ideas.  Papers that are submitted to a journal for publication are sent out to several scientists (peers) who look carefully at the paper to see if it is "good science".  These reviewers then recommend to the editor of a journal whether or not a paper should be published. Most journals have publication guidelines. Ask for them and follow them exactly.    Peer reviewers examine the soundness of the materials and methods section.  Are the materials and methods used written clearly enough for another scientist to reproduce the experiment?  Other areas they look at are: originality of research, significance of research question studied, soundness of the discussion and interpretation, correct spelling and use of technical terms, and length of the article.

• << Previous: RESULTS
• Next: LITERATURE CITED >>
• Last Updated: Aug 4, 2023 9:33 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uci.edu/scientificwriting

Off-campus? Please use the Software VPN and choose the group UCIFull to access licensed content. For more information, please Click here

Software VPN is not available for guests, so they may not have access to some content when connecting from off-campus.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write a discussion section?

Writing manuscripts to describe study outcomes, although not easy, is the main task of an academician. The aim of the present review is to outline the main aspects of writing the discussion section of a manuscript. Additionally, we address various issues regarding manuscripts in general. It is advisable to work on a manuscript regularly to avoid losing familiarity with the article. On principle, simple, clear and effective language should be used throughout the text. In addition, a pre-peer review process is recommended to obtain feedback on the manuscript. The discussion section can be written in 3 parts: an introductory paragraph, intermediate paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. For intermediate paragraphs, a “divide and conquer” approach, meaning a full paragraph describing each of the study endpoints, can be used. In conclusion, academic writing is similar to other skills, and practice makes perfect.

Introduction

Sharing knowledge produced during academic life is achieved through writing manuscripts. However writing manuscripts is a challenging endeavour in that we physicians have a heavy workload, and English which is common language used for the dissemination of scientific knowledge is not our mother tongue.

The objective of this review is to summarize the method of writing ‘Discussion’ section which is the most important, but probably at the same time the most unlikable part of a manuscript, and demonstrate the easy ways we applied in our practice, and finally share the frequently made relevant mistakes. During this procedure, inevitably some issues which concerns general concept of manuscript writing process are dealt with. Therefore in this review we will deal with topics related to the general aspects of manuscript writing process, and specifically issues concerning only the ‘Discussion’ section.

A) Approaches to general aspects of manuscript writing process:

1. what should be the strategy of sparing time for manuscript writing be.

Two different approaches can be formulated on this issue? One of them is to allocate at least 30 minutes a day for writing a manuscript which amounts to 3.5 hours a week. This period of time is adequate for completion of a manuscript within a few weeks which can be generally considered as a long time interval. Fundamental advantage of this approach is to gain a habit of making academic researches if one complies with the designated time schedule, and to keep the manuscript writing motivation at persistently high levels. Another approach concerning this issue is to accomplish manuscript writing process within a week. With the latter approach, the target is rapidly attained. However longer time periods spent in order to concentrate on the subject matter can be boring, and lead to loss of motivation. Daily working requirements unrelated to the manuscript writing might intervene, and prolong manuscript writing process. Alienation periods can cause loss of time because of need for recurrent literature reviews. The most optimal approach to manuscript writing process is daily writing strategy where higher levels of motivation are persistently maintained.

Especially before writing the manuscript, the most important step at the start is to construct a draft, and completion of the manuscript on a theoretical basis. Therefore, during construction of a draft, attention distracting environment should be avoided, and this step should be completed within 1–2 hours. On the other hand, manuscript writing process should begin before the completion of the study (even the during project stage). The justification of this approach is to see the missing aspects of the study and the manuscript writing methodology, and try to solve the relevant problems before completion of the study. Generally, after completion of the study, it is very difficult to solve the problems which might be discerned during the writing process. Herein, at least drafts of the ‘Introduction’, and ‘Material and Methods’ can be written, and even tables containing numerical data can be constructed. These tables can be written down in the ‘Results’ section. [ 1 ]

2. How should the manuscript be written?

The most important principle to be remembered on this issue is to obey the criteria of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. [ 2 ] Herein, do not forget that, the objective should be to share our findings with the readers in an easily comprehensible format. Our approach on this subject is to write all structured parts of the manuscript at the same time, and start writing the manuscript while reading the first literature. Thus newly arisen connotations, and self-brain gyms will be promptly written down. However during this process your outcomes should be revealed fully, and roughly the message of the manuscript which be delivered. Thus with this so-called ‘hunter’s approach’ the target can be achieved directly, and rapidly. Another approach is ‘collectioner’s approach. [ 3 ] In this approach, firstly, potential data, and literature studies are gathered, read, and then selected ones are used. Since this approach suits with surgical point of view, probably ‘hunter’s approach’ serves our purposes more appropriately. However, in parallel with academic development, our novice colleague ‘manuscripters’ can prefer ‘collectioner’s approach.’

On the other hand, we think that research team consisting of different age groups has some advantages. Indeed young colleagues have the enthusiasm, and energy required for the conduction of the study, while middle-aged researchers have the knowledge to manage the research, and manuscript writing. Experienced researchers make guiding contributions to the manuscript. However working together in harmony requires assignment of a chief researcher, and periodically organizing advancement meetings. Besides, talents, skills, and experiences of the researchers in different fields (ie. research methods, contact with patients, preparation of a project, fund-raising, statistical analysis etc.) will determine task sharing, and make a favourable contribution to the perfection of the manuscript. Achievement of the shared duties within a predetermined time frame will sustain the motivation of the researchers, and prevent wearing out of updated data.

According to our point of view, ‘Abstract’ section of the manuscript should be written after completion of the manuscript. The reason for this is that during writing process of the main text, the significant study outcomes might become insignificant or vice versa. However, generally, before onset of the writing process of the manuscript, its abstract might be already presented in various congresses. During writing process, this abstract might be a useful guide which prevents deviation from the main objective of the manuscript.

On the other hand references should be promptly put in place while writing the manuscript, Sorting, and placement of the references should not be left to the last moment. Indeed, it might be very difficult to remember relevant references to be placed in the ‘Discussion’ section. For the placement of references use of software programs detailed in other sections is a rational approach.

3. Which target journal should be selected?

In essence, the methodology to be followed in writing the ‘Discussion’ section is directly related to the selection of the target journal. Indeed, in compliance with the writing rules of the target journal, limitations made on the number of words after onset of the writing process, effects mostly the ‘Discussion’ section. Proper matching of the manuscript with the appropriate journal requires clear, and complete comprehension of the available data from scientific point of view. Previously, similar articles might have been published, however innovative messages, and new perspectives on the relevant subject will facilitate acceptance of the article for publication. Nowadays, articles questioning available information, rather than confirmatory ones attract attention. However during this process, classical information should not be questioned except for special circumstances. For example manuscripts which lead to the conclusions as “laparoscopic surgery is more painful than open surgery” or “laparoscopic surgery can be performed without prior training” will not be accepted or they will be returned by the editor of the target journal to the authors with the request of critical review. Besides the target journal to be selected should be ready to accept articles with similar concept. In fact editors of the journal will not reserve the limited space in their journal for articles yielding similar conclusions.

The title of the manuscript is as important as the structured sections * of the manuscript. The title can be the most striking or the newest outcome among results obtained.

Before writing down the manuscript, determination of 2–3 titles increases the motivation of the authors towards the manuscript. During writing process of the manuscript one of these can be selected based on the intensity of the discussion. However the suitability of the title to the agenda of the target journal should be investigated beforehand. For example an article bearing the title “Use of barbed sutures in laparoscopic partial nephrectomy shortens warm ischemia time” should not be sent to “Original Investigations and Seminars in Urologic Oncology” Indeed the topic of the manuscript is out of the agenda of this journal.

4. Do we have to get a pre-peer review about the written manuscript?

Before submission of the manuscript to the target journal the opinions of internal, and external referees should be taken. [ 1 ] Internal referees can be considered in 2 categories as “General internal referees” and “expert internal referees” General internal referees (ie. our colleagues from other medical disciplines) are not directly concerned with your subject matter but as mentioned above they critically review the manuscript as for simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness of its writing style. Expert internal reviewers have a profound knowledge about the subject, and they can provide guidance about the writing process of the manuscript (ie. our senior colleagues more experienced than us). External referees are our colleagues who did not contribute to data collection of our study in any way, but we can request their opinions about the subject matter of the manuscript. Since they are unrelated both to the author(s), and subject matter of the manuscript, these referees can review our manuscript more objectively. Before sending the manuscript to internal, and external referees, we should contact with them, and ask them if they have time to review our manuscript. We should also give information about our subject matter. Otherwise pre-peer review process can delay publication of the manuscript, and decrease motivation of the authors. In conclusion, whoever the preferred referee will be, these internal, and external referees should respond the following questions objectively. 1) Does the manuscript contribute to the literature?; 2) Does it persuasive? 3) Is it suitable for the publication in the selected journal? 4) Has a simple, clear, and effective language been used throughout the manuscript? In line with the opinions of the referees, the manuscript can be critically reviewed, and perfected. [ 1 ]**

Following receival of the opinions of internal, and external referees, one should concentrate priorly on indicated problems, and their solutions. Comments coming from the reviewers should be criticized, but a defensive attitude should not be assumed during this evaluation process. During this “incubation” period where the comments of the internal, and external referees are awaited, literature should be reviewed once more. Indeed during this time interval a new article which you should consider in the ‘Discussion’ section can be cited in the literature.

5. What are the common mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript?

Probably the most important mistakes made related to the writing process of a manuscript include lack of a clear message of the manuscript , inclusion of more than one main idea in the same text or provision of numerous unrelated results at the same time so as to reinforce the assertions of the manuscript. This approach can be termed roughly as “loss of the focus of the study” In conclusion, the author(s) should ask themselves the following question at every stage of the writing process:. “What is the objective of the study? If you always get clear-cut answers whenever you ask this question, then the study is proceeding towards the right direction. Besides application of a template which contains the intended clear-cut messages to be followed will contribute to the communication of net messages.

One of the important mistakes is refraining from critical review of the manuscript as a whole after completion of the writing process. Therefore, the authors should go over the manuscript for at least three times after finalization of the manuscript based on joint decision. The first control should concentrate on the evaluation of the appropriateness of the logic of the manuscript, and its organization, and whether desired messages have been delivered or not. Secondly, syutax, and grammar of the manuscript should be controlled. It is appropriate to review the manuscript for the third time 1 or 2 weeks after completion of its writing process. Thus, evaluation of the “cooled” manuscript will be made from a more objective perspective, and assessment process of its integrity will be facilitated.

Other erroneous issues consist of superfluousness of the manuscript with unnecessary repetitions, undue, and recurrent references to the problems adressed in the manuscript or their solution methods, overcriticizing or overpraising other studies, and use of a pompous literary language overlooking the main objective of sharing information. [ 4 ]

B) Approaches to the writing process of the ‘Discussion’ section:

1. how should the main points of ‘discussion’ section be constructed.

Generally the length of the ‘Discussion ‘ section should not exceed the sum of other sections (ıntroduction, material and methods, and results), and it should be completed within 6–7 paragraphs.. Each paragraph should not contain more than 200 words, and hence words should be counted repeteadly. The ‘Discussion’ section can be generally divided into 3 separate paragraphs as. 1) Introductory paragraph, 2) Intermediate paragraphs, 3) Concluding paragraph.

The introductory paragraph contains the main idea of performing the study in question. Without repeating ‘Introduction’ section of the manuscript, the problem to be addressed, and its updateness are analysed. The introductory paragraph starts with an undebatable sentence, and proceeds with a part addressing the following questions as 1) On what issue we have to concentrate, discuss or elaborate? 2) What solutions can be recommended to solve this problem? 3) What will be the new, different, and innovative issue? 4) How will our study contribute to the solution of this problem An introductory paragraph in this format is helpful to accomodate reader to the rest of the Discussion section. However summarizing the basic findings of the experimental studies in the first paragraph is generally recommended by the editors of the journal. [ 5 ]

In the last paragraph of the Discussion section “strong points” of the study should be mentioned using “constrained”, and “not too strongly assertive” statements. Indicating limitations of the study will reflect objectivity of the authors, and provide answers to the questions which will be directed by the reviewers of the journal. On the other hand in the last paragraph, future directions or potential clinical applications may be emphasized.

2. How should the intermediate paragraphs of the Discussion section be formulated?

The reader passes through a test of boredom while reading paragraphs of the Discussion section apart from the introductory, and the last paragraphs. Herein your findings rather than those of the other researchers are discussed. The previous studies can be an explanation or reinforcement of your findings. Each paragraph should contain opinions in favour or against the topic discussed, critical evaluations, and learning points.

Our management approach for intermediate paragraphs is “divide and conquer” tactics. Accordingly, the findings of the study are determined in order of their importance, and a paragraph is constructed for each finding ( Figure 1 ). Each paragraph begins with an “indisputable” introductory sentence about the topic to be discussed. This sentence basically can be the answer to the question “What have we found?” Then a sentence associated with the subject matter to be discussed is written. Subsequently, in the light of the current literature this finding is discussed, new ideas on this subject are revealed, and the paragraph ends with a concluding remark.

Divide and Conquer tactics

In this paragraph, main topic should be emphasized without going into much detail. Its place, and importance among other studies should be indicated. However during this procedure studies should be presented in a logical sequence (ie. from past to present, from a few to many cases), and aspects of the study contradictory to other studies should be underlined. Results without any supportive evidence or equivocal results should not be written. Besides numerical values presented in the Results section should not be repeated unless required.

Besides, asking the following questions, and searching their answers in the same paragraph will facilitate writing process of the paragraph. [ 1 ] 1) Can the discussed result be false or inadequate? 2) Why is it false? (inadequate blinding, protocol contamination, lost to follow-up, lower statistical power of the study etc.), 3) What meaning does this outcome convey?

3. What are the common mistakes made in writing the Discussion section?:

Probably the most important mistake made while writing the Discussion section is the need for mentioning all literature references. One point to remember is that we are not writing a review article, and only the results related to this paragraph should be discussed. Meanwhile, each word of the paragraphs should be counted, and placed carefully. Each word whose removal will not change the meaning should be taken out from the text.” Writing a saga with “word salads” *** is one of the reasons for prompt rejection. Indeed, if the reviewer thinks that it is difficult to correct the Discussion section, he/she use her/ his vote in the direction of rejection to save time (Uniform requirements for manuscripts: International Comittee of Medical Journal Editors [ http://www.icmje.org/urm_full.pdf ])

The other important mistake is to give too much references, and irrelevancy between the references, and the section with these cited references. [ 3 ] While referring these studies, (excl. introductory sentences linking indisputable sentences or paragraphs) original articles should be cited. Abstracts should not be referred, and review articles should not be cited unless required very much.

4. What points should be paid attention about writing rules, and grammar?

As is the case with the whole article, text of the Discussion section should be written with a simple language, as if we are talking with our colleague. [ 2 ] Each sentence should indicate a single point, and it should not exceed 25–30 words. The priorly mentioned information which linked the previous sentence should be placed at the beginning of the sentence, while the new information should be located at the end of the sentence. During construction of the sentences, avoid unnecessary words, and active voice rather than passive voice should be used.**** Since conventionally passive voice is used in the scientific manuscripts written in the Turkish language, the above statement contradicts our writing habits. However, one should not refrain from beginning the sentences with the word “we”. Indeed, editors of the journal recommend use of active voice so as to increase the intelligibility of the manuscript.

In conclusion, the major point to remember is that the manuscript should be written complying with principles of simplicity, clarity, and effectiveness. In the light of these principles, as is the case in our daily practice, all components of the manuscript (IMRAD) can be written concurrently. In the ‘Discussion’ section ‘divide and conquer’ tactics remarkably facilitates writing process of the discussion. On the other hand, relevant or irrelevant feedbacks received from our colleagues can contribute to the perfection of the manuscript. Do not forget that none of the manuscripts is perfect, and one should not refrain from writing because of language problems, and related lack of experience.

Instead of structured sections of a manuscript (IMRAD): Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, and Discussion

Instead of in the Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine posters to be submitted in congresses are time to time discussed in Wednesday meetings, and opinions of the internal referees are obtained about the weak, and strong points of the study

Instead of a writing style which uses words or sentences with a weak logical meaning that do not lead the reader to any conclusion

Instead of “white color”; “proven”; nstead of “history”; “to”. should be used instead of “white in color”, “definitely proven”, “past history”, and “in order to”, respectively ( ref. 2 )

Instead of “No instances of either postoperative death or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period” use “There were no deaths or major complications occurred during the early post-operative period.

Instead of “Measurements were performed to evaluate the levels of CEA in the serum” use “We measured serum CEA levels”

We apologize for any inconvenience as we update our site to a new look.

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

General Research Paper Guidelines: Discussion

Discussion section.

The overall purpose of a research paper’s discussion section is to evaluate and interpret results, while explaining both the implications and limitations of your findings. Per APA (2020) guidelines, this section requires you to “examine, interpret, and qualify the results and draw inferences and conclusions from them” (p. 89). Discussion sections also require you to detail any new insights, think through areas for future research, highlight the work that still needs to be done to further your topic, and provide a clear conclusion to your research paper. In a good discussion section, you should do the following:

• Clearly connect the discussion of your results to your introduction, including your central argument, thesis, or problem statement.
• Provide readers with a critical thinking through of your results, answering the “so what?” question about each of your findings. In other words, why is this finding important?
• Detail how your research findings might address critical gaps or problems in your field
• Compare your results to similar studies’ findings
• Provide the possibility of alternative interpretations, as your goal as a researcher is to “discover” and “examine” and not to “prove” or “disprove.” Instead of trying to fit your results into your hypothesis, critically engage with alternative interpretations to your results.

For more specific details on your Discussion section, be sure to review Sections 3.8 (pp. 89-90) and 3.16 (pp. 103-104) of your 7 th edition APA manual

*Box content adapted from:

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 8 the discussion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/discussion

Limitations

Limitations of generalizability or utility of findings, often over which the researcher has no control, should be detailed in your Discussion section. Including limitations for your reader allows you to demonstrate you have thought critically about your given topic, understood relevant literature addressing your topic, and chosen the methodology most appropriate for your research. It also allows you an opportunity to suggest avenues for future research on your topic. An effective limitations section will include the following:

• Detail (a) sources of potential bias, (b) possible imprecision of measures, (c) other limitations or weaknesses of the study, including any methodological or researcher limitations.
• Sample size: In quantitative research, if a sample size is too small, it is more difficult to generalize results.
• Lack of available/reliable data : In some cases, data might not be available or reliable, which will ultimately affect the overall scope of your research. Use this as an opportunity to explain areas for future study.
• Lack of prior research on your study topic: In some cases, you might find that there is very little or no similar research on your study topic, which hinders the credibility and scope of your own research. If this is the case, use this limitation as an opportunity to call for future research. However, make sure you have done a thorough search of the available literature before making this claim.
• Flaws in measurement of data: Hindsight is 20/20, and you might realize after you have completed your research that the data tool you used actually limited the scope or results of your study in some way. Again, acknowledge the weakness and use it as an opportunity to highlight areas for future study.
• Limits of self-reported data: In your research, you are assuming that any participants will be honest and forthcoming with responses or information they provide to you. Simply acknowledging this assumption as a possible limitation is important in your research.
• Access: Most research requires that you have access to people, documents, organizations, etc.. However, for various reasons, access is sometimes limited or denied altogether. If this is the case, you will want to acknowledge access as a limitation to your research.
• Time: Choosing a research focus that is narrow enough in scope to finish in a given time period is important. If such limitations of time prevent you from certain forms of research, access, or study designs, acknowledging this time restraint is important. Acknowledging such limitations is important, as they can point other researchers to areas that require future study.
• Potential Bias: All researchers have some biases, so when reading and revising your draft, pay special attention to the possibilities for bias in your own work. Such bias could be in the form you organized people, places, participants, or events. They might also exist in the method you selected or the interpretation of your results. Acknowledging such bias is an important part of the research process.
• Language Fluency: On occasion, researchers or research participants might have language fluency issues, which could potentially hinder results or how effectively you interpret results. If this is an issue in your research, make sure to acknowledge it in your limitations section.

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: Limitations of the study . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/limitations

In many research papers, the conclusion, like the limitations section, is folded into the larger discussion section. If you are unsure whether to include the conclusion as part of your discussion or as a separate section, be sure to defer to the assignment instructions or ask your instructor.

The conclusion is important, as it is specifically designed to highlight your research’s larger importance outside of the specific results of your study. Your conclusion section allows you to reiterate the main findings of your study, highlight their importance, and point out areas for future research. Based on the scope of your paper, your conclusion could be anywhere from one to three paragraphs long. An effective conclusion section should include the following:

• Describe the possibilities for continued research on your topic, including what might be improved, adapted, or added to ensure useful and informed future research.
• Provide a detailed account of the importance of your findings
• Reiterate why your problem is important, detail how your interpretation of results impacts the subfield of study, and what larger issues both within and outside of your field might be affected from such results

University of Southern California (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: 9. the conclusion . https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/conclusion

• Previous Page: Results
• Next Page: References
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Cost of Attendance
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

How To Write A Research Paper

Research Paper Discussion Section

How to Write a Discussion For a Research Paper | Objectives, Steps & Examples

10 min read

Published on: Mar 6, 2024

Last updated on: Mar 5, 2024

People also read

How to Write a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write a Proposal For a Research Paper in 10 Steps

A Comprehensive Guide to Creating a Research Paper Outline

Types of Research - Methodologies and Characteristics

300+ Engaging Research Paper Topics to Get You Started

Interesting Psychology Research Topics & Ideas

Qualitative Research - Types, Methods & Examples

Understanding Quantitative Research - Definition, Types, Examples, And More

Research Paper Example - Examples for Different Formats

How To Start A Research Paper - Steps With Examples

How To Write a Literature Review for a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

Types of Qualitative Research Methods - An Overview

Understanding Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research - A Complete Guide

How to Cite a Research Paper in Different Citation Styles

Easy Sociology Research Topics for Your Next Project

200+ Outstanding History Research Paper Topics With Expert Tips

How To Write a Hypothesis in a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Introduction for a Research Paper - A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Write a Good Research Paper Title

How to Write a Conclusion for a Research Paper in 3 Simple Steps

How to Write an Abstract For a Research Paper with Examples

How To Write a Thesis For a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper - Structure and Tips

How to Write a Problem Statement for a Research Paper in 6 Steps

How To Write The Methods Section of a Research Paper Step-by-Step

How to Find Sources For a Research Paper | A Guide

Share this article

As a critical component of scholarly writing, the discussion serves as the intellectual heart of your work. It provides a platform to interpret findings, draw conclusions, and engage with existing literature. 

In this guide, we will cover the primary objectives of the discussion, outline the essential steps for writing, and provide insightful examples. Learning how to write a discussion is key to elevating the impact of your research conclusion.

Follow along as we break down the complexities and offer valuable insights to ensure your discussion section meets the highest standards!

On This Page On This Page -->

What is the Discussion Section in Research?

The discussion section is where the author interprets the results, contextualizes findings within the existing literature and engages in thoughtful analysis. 

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), the discussion is the space for reflection, providing a bridge between the results and the overall conclusion.  

The discussion section typically follows the results section but precedes the conclusion. 

People may sometimes confuse discussions and conclusions sections. While the conclusion summarizes key points, the discussion section interprets and analyzes the results in detail. The discussion goes beyond summarization, offering a deeper understanding of the study's implications and contributing to the scholarly conversation.

Elements of Discussion Section

The discussion section in a research paper comprises the following key elements:

• Summary : What are the main findings in a nutshell?
• Interpretations : How do you explain your results?
• Implications : Why are your findings important in the broader context?
• Limitations : What are the constraints in your methodology or data?
• Recommendations : What future studies or improvements arise from your outcomes?

Main Objectives of Discussion Section

The primary objectives of the discussion section include:

• To interpret the research findings accurately and comprehensively.
• To place the study in the broader context of existing literature.
• To engage in critical thinking and analysis of the results.
• To communicate the significance and implications of the study effectively.

How To Structure a Discussion

Follow these steps to draft a well-organized and effective discussion:

Now that you have a clear structure of your discussion section let’s move on to the writing phase. 

The steps below will help you write an effective research paper discussion section:

Step 1: Summarize your Results

Start the discussion section by providing a brief reintroduction to your research question or hypothesis. This serves to set the stage for the discussion, reminding readers of the study's primary focus.

Next, proceed to summarize your results. Offer a concise overview of the main findings, highlighting the most relevant outcomes of your research. This lays the groundwork for the subsequent interpretation and analysis.

Step 2: Provide Interpretations

In this step, highlight why your findings matter and how they enhance our understanding of the research area. Use a mix of qualitative and quantitative techniques to comprehensively interpret results.

Here are some key points to keep in mind:

• Explain the correlation, patterns, and relationships in your data. 
• Quantify these relations and clarify how they contribute to your study's understanding.
• Assess if your results align with expectations and whether they support or challenge existing theories.
• Relate your interpretations to past research and established theories, showcasing their challenges to existing knowledge. 
• If there are unexpected results, thoroughly explain them, explore reasons, and discuss their implications for the topic.

Organize your interpretations around themes, hypotheses, or research questions for a focused and structured discussion. Structure your interpretations based on the significance of findings or unexpected results to guide the reader through the crucial aspects of your study.

Step 3: Unpack the Implications

Unpacking the implications involves relating your findings to scholarly work. Discuss how your study aligns with or deviates from previous research from your literature review. It will showcase the academic context of your contributions.

Answer these questions:

• Do your results confirm or contest existing theories? If supporting, what fresh insights do they bring? If challenging, what could be the reasons?
• Are there practical applications of your findings?

Step 4: Discuss the Limitation

Limitations refer to factors that could potentially impact the accuracy, reliability, or scope of your study. They are aspects that were beyond your control or constraints within the research design.

Common Sources of Limitations

Limitations may arise due to various factors, such as the study's methodology, sample size, data collection tools, or external influences. Identifying these limitations is a crucial aspect of maintaining transparency in research.

How to Mention Limitations in the Discussion Section 

Even the most well-conducted studies have limitations. Mentioning these limitations will enhance your research paper's credibility: 

• Clearly and honestly state the limitations of your study. Transparency builds credibility and demonstrates a thoughtful approach to the research process.
• If there were limitations in your methodology (e.g., small sample size, survey design), discuss how these constraints might have affected the study's outcomes.
• If data collection presented challenges (e.g., limited access, response bias), explain how these issues might have impacted the reliability of your results.
• Acknowledge external factors beyond your control that might have influenced the study. This could include unforeseen events, changing societal norms, or evolving technologies.

Highlight limitations directly influencing your research problem or question for a concise and relevant discussion.

Step 5: Offer Recommendations

Having discussed the findings and limitations, it's now time to provide recommendations. These suggestions should arise from the insights gained during the study and serve as a guide for future studies.

How to Offer Recommendations

To offer recommendations keep in view the following points: 

• Base your recommendations on the insights discussed earlier. Consider what gaps or unanswered questions remain.
• If applicable, recommend ways to address the limitations discussed in the study. Propose methodologies or approaches that could enhance future research.
• Relate recommendations to practical applications whenever possible. Consider how future studies could provide actionable insights for real-world scenarios.
• Offer tangible suggestions for further research. Provide clear directions and highlight specific variables, populations, or contexts that warrant exploration.

Discussion Writing Tips - DO'S &  DONT'S

Here are some important tips to consider and some common mistakes to avoid when writing a discussion section for your research paper: 

• DO ensure that every point in your discussion directly relates back to your research questions or hypotheses. This maintains focus and relevance.
• DO prioritize clarity in your writing. Use concise and straightforward language to communicate complex ideas, making them accessible to a broad audience.
• DO acknowledge potential counterarguments or alternative explanations. This demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the topic and adds depth to your discussion.
• DO use concrete examples to illustrate your points. This helps readers grasp the practical implications of your findings and enhances the overall understanding.
• DO provide actionable recommendations for future studies. Give researchers clear directions and ideas for expanding on your work, contributing to the advancement of the field.
• DON'T introduce new information in the discussion. Stick to summarizing, interpreting, and discussing the results obtained in the study without adding fresh data or concepts.
• DON'T overgeneralize your findings. Be cautious not to make sweeping statements beyond the scope of your study or without sufficient evidence.
• DON'T ignore or downplay limitations. Be transparent about the constraints of your study, acknowledging potential biases or areas where improvements could be made.
• DON'T use jargon unnecessarily. While some field-specific terminology is essential, avoid excessive technical language that might confuse readers who are not familiar with the subject.
• DON'T rush the conclusion of your discussion. Take the time to craft a thoughtful and conclusive summary that encapsulates the key takeaways and implications of your study.

Discussion Section Examples

If you're new to crafting research paper discussions, seeking examples can serve as a helpful guide to tailor your approach according to your paper's style and type.

Discussion For A Scientific Paper

Discussion For A Medical Research Paper

Example of Result And Discussion In Research Paper

Discussion in A Report

Qualitative Research Discussion Example

Wrapping up, 

In this guide, we've explored the essential elements, steps, and provided examples to demystify the process.

By adhering to the outlined steps you ensure a well-rounded and insightful discussion. Always keep your research questions in focus, maintaining clarity and relevance.

Remember, discussions are not merely an endpoint but a springboard for future research. But if you find yourself struggling with the right syllables or structure for your discussion section, professional assistance is just a step away. 

Our reliable writing service is here to support you with your academic writing needs. With our experienced team, you can navigate the complexities of crafting a stellar discussion with confidence. 

Don't hesitate to reach out to our research paper writing service today!

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

• Research Paper >

Writing a Discussion Section

Writing a discussion section is where you really begin to add your interpretations to the work.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Outline Examples
• Example of a Paper
• Write a Hypothesis
• Introduction

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Write a Research Paper
• 2 Writing a Paper
• 3.1 Write an Outline
• 3.2 Outline Examples
• 4.1 Thesis Statement
• 4.2 Write a Hypothesis
• 5.2 Abstract
• 5.3 Introduction
• 5.4 Methods
• 5.5 Results
• 5.6 Discussion
• 5.7 Conclusion
• 5.8 Bibliography
• 6.1 Table of Contents
• 6.2 Acknowledgements
• 6.3 Appendix
• 7.1 In Text Citations
• 7.2 Footnotes
• 7.3.1 Floating Blocks
• 7.4 Example of a Paper
• 7.5 Example of a Paper 2
• 7.6.1 Citations
• 7.7.1 Writing Style
• 7.7.2 Citations
• 8.1.1 Sham Peer Review
• 8.1.2 Advantages
• 8.1.3 Disadvantages
• 8.2 Publication Bias
• 8.3.1 Journal Rejection
• 9.1 Article Writing
• 9.2 Ideas for Topics

In this critical part of the research paper, you start the process of explaining any links and correlations apparent in your data.

If you left few interesting leads and open questions in the results section , the discussion is simply a matter of building upon those and expanding them.

The Difficulties of Writing a Discussion Section

In an ideal world, you could simply reject your null or alternative hypotheses according to the significance levels found by the statistics.

That is the main point of your discussion section, but the process is usually a lot more complex than that. It is rarely clear-cut, and you will need to interpret your findings.

For example, one of your graphs may show a distinct trend, but not enough to reach an acceptable significance level.

Remember that no significance is not the same as no difference, and you can begin to explain this in your discussion section.

Whilst your results may not be enough to reject the null hypothesis , they may show a trend that later researchers may wish to explore, perhaps by refining the experiment .

Self-Criticism at the Heart of Writing a Discussion Section

For this purpose, you should criticize the experiment, and be honest about whether your design was good enough. If not, suggest any modifications and improvements that could be made to the design.

Maybe the reason that you did not find a significant correlation is because your sampling was not random , or you did not use sensitive enough equipment.

The discussion section is not always about what you found, but what you did not find, and how you deal with that. Stating that the results are inconclusive is the easy way out, and you must always try to pick out something of value.

Using the Discussion Section to Expand Knowledge

You should always put your findings into the context of the previous research that you found during your literature review . Do your results agree or disagree with previous research?

Do the results of the previous research help you to interpret your own findings? If your results are very different, why? Either you have uncovered something new, or you may have made a major flaw with the design of the experiment .

Finally, after saying all of this, you can make a statement about whether the experiment has contributed to knowledge in the field, or not.

Unless you made so many errors that the results are completely unreliable, you will; certainly have learned something. Try not to be too broad in your generalizations to the wider world - it is a small experiment and is unlikely to change the world.

Once writing the discussion section is complete, you can move onto the next stage, wrapping up the paper with a focused conclusion .

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth (Mar 6, 2009). Writing a Discussion Section. Retrieved Aug 23, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/writing-a-discussion-section

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Check out the official book.

Learn how to construct, style and format an Academic paper and take your skills to the next level.

(also available as ebook )

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

Journal Article: Discussion

Criteria for success.

A strong Discussion section:

• Tells the main conclusion of the paper in one or two sentences.
• Tells how the paper’s results contribute to answering the big questions posed in the Introduction.
• Explains how (and why) this work agrees or disagrees with other, similar work.
• Explains how the limitations of this study leave the big questions unanswered.
• Tells how extensions of this paper’s results will be useful for answering the big questions.

Structure Diagram

The Discussion is the part of your paper where you can share what you think your results mean with respect to the big questions you posed in your Introduction. The Introduction and Discussion are natural partners: the Introduction tells the reader what question you are working on and why you did this experiment to investigate it; the Discussion tells the reader what the results of that experiment have to say about the bigger question.

Imagine you explained the results in the paper to a labmate who looks confused and asks you, “Sure, but so what? Why was this cool or interesting?” Your response to your labmate should be similar to the content in the Discussion.

Analyze Your Audience

Different kinds of readers will expect different things from your Discussion. Readers who are not experts in your field might read your Discussion before your Results in the hopes that they can learn what your Results mean and why your paper is important without having to learn how to interpret your experimental results. They might also be interested to know what you think the future of your field is. Readers who are more familiar with your field will generally understand what the results of your experiments say, but they will be curious about how you interpreted confusing, conflicting, or complicated results.

As you write your Discussion, decide who will find each paragraph interesting and what you want them to take away from it. Successful Discussions can simultaneously provide the specific, nuanced information that experts want to read and the broader, more general statements that non-experts can appreciate.

The balance between expert and non-expert readers in your target audience will depend on the journal to which you submit. High-profile, general readership journals will have more non-expert readers, while more technical, field-specific journals have almost exclusively expert readers.

Tell how your paper is special

Weak Discussions begin with a summary of the results or a repetition of the main points of the Introduction. Strong Discussions immediately carve out a place for themselves in the large universe of papers by saying what makes this one interesting or special. One way to do this is to start the Discussion with one or two sentences that state the main finding from the results and what that finding means for the field.

Relate your results to existing results

In the Introduction, you probably helped motivate your study by citing previous results in your field. Now that you’ve laid out your results, you should tell whether your results agree or disagree with prior work and why. You might have extended previous work, showed how apparently conflicting results are actually harmonious, or exposed a contradiction that currently has no explanation.

Tell how your study’s limitations leave open the big questions

Every study is finite: you did some things and not others, and you used methods that can explain some phenomena but not others. How do the limitations of your study leave open the bigger questions? Do you just need to do more of the same kind of work? Have you shown that current methods are inadequate for answering the big question?

Every paper is a contribution to a larger scientific conversation. Hopefully, you think your contribution is somehow useful to that conversation: it provides new information or tools that will help you or other researchers move toward answers to the big questions. To explain this contribution, many Discussions end with a forward-looking statement that tries to place the paper in an expected future of research in that field.

This content was adapted from from an article originally created by the  MIT Biological Engineering Communication Lab .

Resources and Annotated Examples

Annotated example 1.

This is the discussion for an article published in Science Translational Medicine . 6 MB

Annotated Example 2

This is the discussion for an article published in Cell . 325 KB

• Free Materials
• English Language Editing
• Technical Scientific Editing
• Scientific Writing Workshops
• Online courses
• Meet the Team

The 6 key parts in a powerful discussion section

• by kayciebutler
• June 18, 2019 November 13, 2020

The discussion can be a sticking point for many manuscript writers because it seems to be a free for all with no easy pattern for composing it – but there are actually 6 key parts that need to be included!

While it is true that each research project is different – meaning that different parts of the discussion will carry more weight for each manuscript – there are still several key parts to any good discussion.

In fact, ensuring that these 6 parts are included in your discussion will make it more interesting for readers, more useful for other scientists, and therefore will  provide an overall more memorable discussion for your paper.

This post will briefly define a discussion section before detailing the 6 main parts that can help your paper achieve the maximum impact.

These 6 parts represent the various angles that you should consider for all research projects when composing the discussion section, ranging from the narrowest point in scope (your research) to the widest in scope (the impact of your research on the future of science). They should help you brainstorm what to include when writing, and the inclusion of all 6 sections will help to ensure your discussion is well rounded.

What is a discussion?

The discussion answers the questions:

What does your research mean?

How does it fit into the context of the field?

Or, in other words,

a discussion critically analyzes and interprets the results of a scientific study, placing the results in the context of published literature and explaining how they affect the field .

Therefore, a discussion cannot only summarize the results of a paper, but must draw in outside literature from the field to inform the reader of how your latest contribution fits into the current knowledge and how it expands on what is currently known.

6 key parts of a discussion

There are 6 parts to a discussion, and each should be given proper consideration when writing. For most manuscripts, there should be at least some of each category in the discussion, with the proportion depending on the individual manuscript.

It is important to

1. summarize the key points of and then 2. analyze your research before 3. relating how your research fits into the field as a whole. You work should also be compared to 4. the gap in the field, including how your research might have moved the edge of current knowledge. Finally, how your research modified our view of 5. what lies beyond the edge of current knowledge and some 6. suggestions for future directions on how to examine those hypotheses are needed.

Importantly, these parts are not necessarily to be included in the specific order listed here – this list is only designed to highlight the key points that should be included in a discussion, moving from the point narrowest in scope (closest to your every day research) to the point widest in scope (furthest from your every day research, closest to your audience).

A good discussion will ebb and flow between the different sections as the results dictate. Some results will need more critical analysis, some will be more important to relate to the field than others, and some will spark more speculation and future directions.

1. Summary of results

This part of the discussion serves to remind the reader of key results, though care must be taken to avoid extensive summaries, keeping this section to a minimum.

Try for a direct, succinct recap that is used only to help readers avoid having to flip back to the results sections. It is often helpful to reiterate key numbers, especially when they will be next compared to literature values.

This part is often not even written in full sentences, and is used as a bridge into a critical analysis of the results:

• “The results XXX and YYY indicate that [critical analysis]…”
• “Because of XXX, we can say that [interpretation]…”

No new results should be brought up in the discussion.

2. Critical analysis of results

This is where you go beyond a general description of the results to tell the reader what your results actually mean and what you learned from them. This analysis should focus more on unexpected, particularly important, or unusual results, analyzing the meaning of these results for the reader.

You analysis should highlight all of the new trends, relationships, and knowledge uncovered by your research, and should list these analyses in the order in which the results section was written.

If there are possible alternative explanations to your results than the ones you have indicated, these should also be listed along with your rationale for excluding them as possibilities.

3. Relate results to the field

This is where you compare your work to previous studies, especially ones that inspired your work or brought up questions that you have addressed. Your work in only one small chunk of a much larger whole, so let the audience know where in that larger whole your work falls and how it integrates.

This is also where papers from the field can be used to support any claims or speculations that you make. These sources can be reused from the introduction or can be new. Additionally, any studies that contradict your conclusions should be discussed along with plausible explanations for why the contradiction might exist.

In this part of the discussion, you will also want to describe any generalizations you can now make about the field now that your research exists.

4. Relate results to the gap in the field

This part is essential for any discussion, and its lack or absence is one of the biggest mistakes I see in discussion writing.

Only by indicating how your work directly addresses a gap in the field can you show the reader the importance of your study and why it deserves publication. This gap can be a large, obvious gap; a tiny hole that needs to be filled; or even as simple as research reinforcing the current edge of knowledge.

This gap in the field that your research sought to address should be described in the introduction to make sense of why your work was needed. This gap should also be briefly reiterated here in the discussion, often with a brief description of your main results, to highlight how your work addressed this gap.

This part should also describe any important lessons that were learned through your research that advance the current edge of knowledge in your field, such as if you are recommending a change to current best practices or to a known pathway or mechanism .

It is important to ensure you address all of the research questions that were brought up in the introduction in this part, or the reader will feel unfulfilled after finishing your discussion.

5. Speculate beyond current knowledge

The world beyond your field of research is vast and full of unknowns.

Your discussion should therefore also indicate how your results can be applied beyond the limits of current knowledge. This can include possible new insights, developing new hypotheses that can be tested in the future, and speculating on possible new research questions that can now be considered because of your research.

Speculation as to how your results fit into an even bigger picture or how they can be applied or related to the field more generally are also allowed, though it is important to ensure these are claims logically supported by your research and the rest of the field. DO NOT make wild claims that your research cannot support.

6. Future directions

Now its time to tell the reader how we might try to get from where we are to where we want to be in the future.

This is where a note should be made of any questions left unanswered by your research, including possible routes for answering these questions if they are known…with the one major caveat that you should never discuss future directions that should be included within the scope of your research! If you find yourself needing to do that, consider adding those experiments to the current study.

Additionally, discuss possible future studies that could address any new hypotheses brought up by your research and any new technology that might need to be developed to do that. Details for future studies that could avoid or address any of your study limitations should also be included.

Finally, don’t forget to bring up possible applications of your work, though again, make sure to stick within the realm of the feasible!

Finally…

…does the last discussion you wrote include some of all six categories?

Will being aware of these 6 key points help you brainstorm for writing future discussion sections?

Future posts are going to break down published discussion sections to look for patterns that can further help you compose your discussion.

Until then, happy writing!

1 thought on “The 6 key parts in a powerful discussion section”

Pingback:  Why Are Key Points Important? – Bescord

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

FREE ABSTRACT E-COURSE

Including: -> Detailed breakdowns of ideal abstracts -> Most common mistakes and how to avoid them ->How to WRITE your abstract from scratch ->And all of our best tips , info , and everything you need to know

But we don’t stop there! Joining our community includes: ->Members-only discounts on all of our courses ->Tips for writing , editing , and publishing your science -> First access to all our material direct to your inbox  – NO SPAM !

Here - have a cookie!

Privacy overview.

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

Discover How to Write a Discussion Section of a Research Paper

Updated 25 Jul 2024

When working on a research paper, one of the most important parts you must include is the discussion or the analytical section where you outline your findings. While it is almost the final part of an academic research paper, learning how to use it correctly without keeping things cluttered is essential. This article will help you understand the specifics regarding the discussion section of a research paper. You will learn why this section must be implemented, what to consider, and what things to avoid. This guide shall provide you with the structure and the basic rules. 

What is the discussion section of a research paper?

Speaking of an academic definition, a good discussion section in a research paper should provide a comprehensive analysis of any findings that you have encountered , especially when it's something unexpected. Since the talk is about the final part of your research, you must keep things condensed and realize that your target audience already knows the subject. It means that you have to analyze and interpret your findings. Once done, you must provide a brief significance of what you have discussed by bringing things back to the primary research objectives. In a certain sense, you must show the importance of what you have studied or an issue that has been brought up. 

What is the purpose of a discussion section? 

Your discussion must represent a brief review, so you must analyze and evaluate your research paper first. If you are not finished with your exploration yet, do not start with the discussion section because the purpose is to provide a clear context by discussing what’s already done. The purpose is to take each part of the preceding sections and make it easier for your target audience to connect the dots.

You have to provide at least three parts in your discussion section of a research paper, where you include an interpretation , an analytical part , and an explanation . It means you have to talk to your readers and provide a review by showing why your outcome is important and how it fits within the science. At the same time, you must remain self-critical and mention the limitations that you have encountered. If you require assistance, consider getting professional  research paper help for valuable guidance.

How long should the discussion section of a research paper be? 

The length aspect is tricky because your general requirements may differ depending on your subject and the total length of your research paper. The common rule is that your "Discussion" part should not be longer than the sum of other sections. You have to keep it within 6-7 paragraphs. The median discussion length is usually between 1100 and 2200 words. 

In a certain sense, your length will always relate to the number of your findings. Do not repeat your findings word after word because the purpose is to include a concise statement by dividing your total amount of words for three vital sections. 

Structure of discussion section of a research paper 

The most challenging part for college and university students is the structure of the discussion part of the research paper. As we have already learned, three sub-sections must be included. As an author, starting with a discussion in a research paper, you have to provide three main objectives, or contact someone to write my discussion post for you. 

• Discussion of your research paper. You have to start with the main objectives and answers that explain your research and the brief background of the methodology you have taken. It should be up to five sentences. Include your main thesis and remind your target audience about the key elements of your study. 
• Analysis of your findings. The middle part of your "Discussion" section should provide analytical writing. It should include a brief comparison with the previous research papers with references. The purpose is to support your study and the methods you have taken. This is where you start with interpreting your results and defend the answers as the introduction to your findings. 
• Interpretation of the research results. In the final section of your discussion, you must discuss your study's strengths and limitations by interpreting the results in greater depth. Discuss how your findings relate to the objectives that you have taken before. The tone of your structure must show that the research has been completed. Talk about the conclusion of your study and discuss the significance of your research paper. If it fills the gap in a certain field of study, mention it as well. 

When you are done with your structure and the notes, you have to understand that it is not the conclusion section because you have to talk and do a short review. It means that you have to learn how to write a research summary and always take all the key points as you explain things in writing. It is exactly what you must do when you think over your structure, where you go step by step to make your research paper or essay sound clear. 

How to write the discussion section of a research paper: 7 steps 

Step 1:  Read your research and always take notes. Start by reading through the previous sections of your research by taking notes of all the important elements. 

For example, if your research paper focuses on children’s literature and the interest among the kids, set your objectives to remind what you will discuss. It may start with: “The importance of studying young authors and the classics of children’s literature has been supported by the children’s book shows and social initiatives. The statistical data and research surveys have shown that the social campaigns boost the interest among the young readers”. 

Step 2:  Outline your main thesis objectives. Feel free to provide your thesis in a different, more condensed way. Once again, if we are dealing with a certain subject, it has to be related to the main problem. 

Suppose we are dealing with Digital Marketing and logistics in the post-Covid world. In that case, it has to be something like that: “The digital marketing in 2023 has been based on the lessons that we have learned during the pandemic times, which shows that the future of digital sales will relate to what we already know”. 

Step 3: Introduce your findings. Once you have introduced your main research subject, you should discuss what you could learn. It should not be a carbon copy of the results because you have to interpret them clearly, as if you are talking to a good friend. 

If you are studying autistic children, your example of discussion in the research paper can be like that: “The methodology used has shown that the use of technology apps helps the autistic children learn with the help of AI-based tools and seek the safe methods of communication. Based on statistical data, we can see that virtual classrooms have increased the learning time by at least 67%”. 

Step 4: Provide an analysis of the process. You should offer an analytical tone next as you discuss your research paper. It is one of the most challenging aspects that must be done. 

Suppose you are studying ER Nursing and the burnout problem. In that case, your discussion part of a research paper will be this way: “While the research methods used have been mostly limited to surveys and questionnaires, the majority of the nurses have also kept to journaling and the diaries. It has shown that most ER nursing personnel wish to join free Psychology courses to manage the stress”. 

Step 5:  Interpret the pros and cons of research. Do not pick only the good or the bad parts as you provide an interpretation. It means that you must include all sides of your research as you look at the findings. 

An example of this part in the field of Education would be this way: “ The Learning Management Systems that have been researched have shown that while they are flexible and accessible, there are still mental aspects like an emotional bonding. It shows that the physical presence of a teacher will never replace the virtual assistants”.  

Step 6:  Limitations and the results. It is where you should talk about the limitations and the challenges you have faced. 

For example, when you research Modern Fashion, your limitations may look this way: “Since there was a small sample of the customers that could visit the shops in person, it creates a specific group that differs from the online customers who could see the items differently. It shows that the sample group used has been quite biased”. 

Step 7: The place of your research in the scientific realm. In other words, it should show how your results fit within the local scientific community and/or the world. 

A discussion section of a research paper example for the field of Legal Studies will look this way: “It shows that the Freedom of Speech in practice is not the same aspect as the theoretical paradigm one studies during the academic course. The practical side of freedom done in this research shows why it is important to conduct field sessions based on the actual case studies”. 

What to avoid in a discussion section? 

The majority of modern students often need help understanding what must be done. When you explore your notes and look back at the previous sections, it is important to ensure that you are not missing something important or do not repeat aspects that have already been discussed. Keeping all the challenges on how to write the discussion section of a research paper in mind, our experts developed a basic checklist regarding things you must avoid as you work on your discussion section. Furthermore, you can find cheap research papers here, ensuring you can overcome any problems while staying within your budget.

• Don't copy your research results section! Although you should provide information about your research results, there are other objectives than this! You have to interpret the results and not only state them repeatedly. Your tone must be analytical, as you do not have to keep things up to a simple summary. Explain your results and discuss as you evaluate the pros and cons of the findings by staying unbiased and honest. 
• Make arguments with at least one piece of evidence! When you talk about your findings, you have to offer support and examples that relate to your research. It can be a case study or a research reference. A quote or statistical data should back up your explanations. At the same time, do just what is necessary and ensure you stay within your scientific field. Only make assumptions or start with an interdisciplinary approach if it is absolutely necessary! 
• Connect the dots with your target audience! Remember to provide information in a special way that would connect all of the previous sections. If there is some important statistical data, mention it again and point out why it’s essential for your research results. 
• Only introduce information that has been included before! Your discussion should talk about what has been mentioned in the previous sections. Only add information that could make things clear. The purpose of discussion in a research paper is to base things on what you already have! If you have a new idea, incorporate it in the past parts and discuss it in your following section. Do not forget to include anything new in the "Results" section to ensure that everything remains equal. 
• Only pick some of the essential and positive aspects. Since you have to interpret your findings, pick some crucial facts that make your research sound good. Even if your work could not address the problem or an issue that has been researched, say so! It is absolutely fine to provide an honest answer as you have to discuss your limitations. Discuss and explain why something has happened or why your research did not work by explaining. 

Making your discussion section inspiring 

Now, what is the discussion section of a research paper to sum things up? It is a piece of writing that should motivate your readers and even make a call to action as you talk about your take's advantages and the limitations you have faced. When you discuss something, it should briefly explain your research. If a person starts reading your research from this section, it should represent an executive plan that instantly explains every single bit. Always start with a research paper thesis statement because it will remind the readers about your main goals and show how it has been achieved and what barriers have been encountered. The golden rule of research writing will help you narrow things down and keep your writing condensed, inspiring, and clear! 

What is the main focus of the discussion section? 

It is to provide your readers with a clear explanation, analysis, and interpretation of what you could find as a researcher. Create a small review of your research to showcase all the advantages achieved. If a certain section provides the summary, it should be included in your discussion. Do not explain your methodology at greater length or repeat your thesis alone because you have to discuss and explain why your research is helpful. Most importantly, always show how your research findings fit within the main scientific field. 

What to include in the discussion section of a research paper? 

Let us assume a simple example: when you are writing a research paper on domestic abuse in Chile. Your discussion section should pose a thesis statement in the beginning and discuss why it is important and what objectives have been set. In the next part, you should explain your findings as to the reasons why domestic abuse happens and what solutions have been used. It must be based on the thesis and methodology without getting too deep. Once done, talk about the strong and the weak parts by analyzing your take on the problem. Offer an interpretation of how your research paper will help to address the problem not only in Chile but globally as well.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Meredith Anderson

Meredith, a dedicated editor at EduBirdie, specializes in academic writing. Her keen eye for grammar and structure ensures flawless papers, while her insightful feedback helps students improve their writing skills and achieve higher grades.

Related Blog Posts

Guide on how to write an abstract for a research paper with examples.

An Abstract in a Research Paper: Definition The chances are high that you have already seen an abstract section in a research paper as you brow...

How to craft research objectives: guidelines & tips

In the ever-evolving landscape of academic study, having clear and well-defined research objectives is crucial for the success of any work. Study a...

Delimitations in research: meaning, types, and examples

Working on academic papers can make it easy to feel overwhelmed by the huge amount of available data and information. One of the most crucial consi...

Join our 150K of happy users

• Get original papers written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Center for Teaching Innovation

Facilitating discussions.

Facilitating a longer discussion in a small class or seminar requires many skills in planning, asking good questions, listening, managing the time, keeping an eye on the group dynamics, and thinking on your feet to respond. It takes time and experience to become a good discussion facilitator. Observing how other instructors facilitate discussion, either by asking a colleague if you can observe a class or through participating in the Big Red Teaching Days class observation program, is one way to enhance your skills. Below, you can find strategies to plan, structure, and lead a discussion.

Asking Good Questions as a Facilitator

Shape your questions to practice intellectual skills . When creating your question prompts, reflect on your learning outcomes and the intellectual skills you are helping the students to practice. For example, you may want students to practice critiquing the study methods or use of evidence, examining different perspectives, identifying assumptions or biases, seeing themes or patterns, or recognizing rhetorical moves. Write your questions with your learning outcomes in mind.

Ask one question at a time and then wait . Be careful about making a question too complex, stacking questions (asking two or more questions at one time), or over-explaining and rephrasing your question. Ask one question and then wait 10-30 seconds or give students some time to write. A complex question needs thinking time. Allowing more thinking time encourages greater participation from everyone – not just from the students who can quickly jump into a discussion.

Organizing discussion questions Consider organizing your questions into the categories of ‘warming up,’ ‘exploring’, and ‘wrapping up’.

Warm-up: Give students an opportunity to start thinking about a topic or question. This might include individual writing or thinking time or a discussion prompt to discuss with a partner. Some example warm-up questions include.

• Try to write a one sentence summary of this topic/reading/case study etc.
• Write down three questions you have about this topic/reading/film/art work/material etc.
• What stood out to you in the reading/film/music etc.?
• How do you feel about the argument or perspective presented? Do you agree or disagree and why?
• What connections can you see between this topic and current events or issues?
• What potential biases or assumptions can you identify in the material?
• What are some possible counterarguments or alternative perspectives?
• How does this topic relate to your own experiences or beliefs? What new insights did you gain?

Exploring : This is the heart of the discussion when students are exploring different threads, topics, ideas, and perspectives. Instructor questions can deepen the discussion and help students practice intellectual skills such as source or evidence evaluation, comparison, identifying assumptions or bias, identifying themes or patterns, critique or questioning, and synthesis. 

Wrap-up : At the end, leave time for students to reflect on take-aways, insights, or further questions to consider. The instructor might want to highlight certain points or ideas. Note that wrapping up does not necessarily mean finding one answer or consensus on a topic.

Back to top

Warming-up Strategies

• Minute paper: Pose a question for students to write about for a minute (or five minutes)
• Think/pair/share: Present students with a question, problem, or item for reflection. Have students reflect or write on their own for 1-2 minutes, then discuss with a peer for another 2-5 minutes. Invite several pairs to share their thoughts. 
• Close reading, close observation, close listening: Ask your students to read and provide a detailed explanation of  a passage of text, listen to poetry or music, or closely examine an image. Then ask them to answer a question(s) based on the material. Have students discuss their thoughts with a peer(s).
• Write a list of questions: Ask students to write a list of questions they have about a topic, a reading, an image, a piece of music, an experiment, etc. This can be followed by pair discussion, small group, or whole class discussion of some of the questions.
• Real-life examples: For a concept in the class, ask students to think of or find an example from real life (this could be from their own life or in the news). The purpose is to help students build connections and memories as well as to see if they can transfer what they are learning to other examples. It can also help value and highlight diverse perspectives.
• Polling questions: Ask students to vote or respond to a question on a scale of 1-5. Ask them to share their reasoning for their answer with a partner. PollEverywhere software can help with classroom polling. You can sign up for a free Cornell account through the Center for Teaching Innovation.

Exploring Strategies

Questions that can deepen and enrich the conversation. As the instructor, you may need to encourage students to build on each other's ideas, use evidence to back up their comments, or uncover assumptions. Some question types that help to deepen the discussion include:

• Evidence questions: ask students to find examples or examine the supporting evidence.
• Connecting questions: ask students to compare or link this discussion to previous class topics, readings, or themes, or ask students to build on what someone has said.
• Counter-argument questions: ask about other possibilities or perspectives, underlying assumptions, or may take a devil’s advocate position.
• Hypothetical questions: ask ‘what if?’ and prompt consideration of other possibilities or outcomes.
• Summary or synthesis questions: ask students to identify key ideas, themes, what they have learned, or questions they still have about a topic.
• Noticing and wondering questions: As the instructor, you might notice emotions or patterns in the room such as uncertainty, avoidance, enthusiasm, curiosity, controversy, or anger. You could phrase a question such as “I’m noticing that people seem really enthusiastic about the idea that…what is especially appealing about this idea?”

Other Strategies for Exploring Complex Topics Include:

Wrapping up the discussion.

Effectively concluding a discussion can be just as important as the discussion itself. Various techniques can help maximize the time spent, reinforce the learning, and allow for connections to future parts of the course. Consider trying out the following at the end of a discussion session:

• Summarize key points with the group : Highlight the main ideas, critical concepts, and arguments discussed, and recap any consensus or differing viewpoints. 
• Connect back to learning objectives : Relate the discussion back to the course objectives and why it’s important. Emphasize how the discussion contributes to the overall understanding of the subject matter.
• Acknowledge contributions : Point out specific contributions that added significant value. This helps learners to feel heard, valued and cared about, and a desire to contribute in the future.
• What was the most surprising or unexpected point that emerged from today’s discussion?
• How did today’s discussion change or reinforce your understanding of the topic?
• Can you identify any real-world applications or implications of the concepts  discussed?
• What questions remain unanswered for you after our discussion, and how might  you go about finding the answers?
• How does what we discussed today connect to other topics we’ve covered in this course or other courses?
• What is something you learned from someone else today?
• Provide a closing question or thought : You could also open the floor to last thoughts from anyone in the group.
• Highlight applications and real-world connections : Apply the discussion to other contexts and real-world scenarios to demonstrate higher-level thinking skills and provide relevancy, engagement, and deeper learning.
• Connection for the next class : Explain how today’s discussion relates to future topics. This helps to create a sense of continuity and context for the learning material.

Reflection Afterward

• Assign follow-up reflection activities : To reinforce the learning and generate new ideas, try having students complete reflection activities, such as exit tickets (one thing they learned and one question they still have), reflection papers, student summaries, discussion boards, debates, case studies, and concept maps. Decide whether it’s beneficial for this process to be solo or shared with the group.
• Solicit student feedback : How did it go for learners? An anonymous survey, exit slip, or a minute paper on how it went for them can significantly help to assess what students are taking with them from the class. You can learn so much in just one check-in that you can take with you for years. You might discover areas where students were hindered, held back, or had a barrier preventing them from performing. There might also be useful suggestions from students for next time.
• What went well? How do you feel it went for learners?
• Was there anything that could be improved for next time?
• Were there question prompts that worked especially well? Or ones that seemed confusing?
• What did you specifically do well? Is there anything you as the facilitator might do differently?
• Were there any lulls or heated moments? How might you address or manage these in the future?
• Are there ways to add roles or structures that could take some of the pressure off of you? Perhaps there are student roles and tasks to help facilitate or maintain the flow of discussion. 
• If something didn’t go so well or you are concerned with students' psychological safety, you can still acknowledge or apologize next class and share how you are working to address it. You can also connect students with campus resources and reach out to directly impacted students individually.

References and Further Reading:

Eberly Center, Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation (2024) Discussions. Carnegie Mellon.

Davis, B. G. (1993) Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. and S. Preskill. (1999). Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

In-Text Citations

In scholarly writing, it is essential to acknowledge how others contributed to your work. By following the principles of proper citation, writers ensure that readers understand their contribution in the context of the existing literature—how they are building on, critically examining, or otherwise engaging the work that has come before.

APA Style provides guidelines to help writers determine the appropriate level of citation and how to avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism.

We also provide specific guidance for in-text citation, including formats for interviews, classroom and intranet sources, and personal communications; in-text citations in general; and paraphrases and direct quotations.

Academic Writer ®

Master academic writing with APA’s essential teaching and learning resource

Course Adoption

Teaching APA Style? Become a course adopter of the 7th edition Publication Manual

Instructional Aids

Guides, checklists, webinars, tutorials, and sample papers for anyone looking to improve their knowledge of APA Style

The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

At Sakana AI, we have pioneered the use of nature-inspired methods to advance cutting-edge foundation models. Earlier this year, we developed methods to automatically merge the knowledge of multiple LLMs . In more recent work, we harnessed LLMs to discover new objective functions for tuning other LLMs. Throughout these projects, we have been continuously surprised by the creative capabilities of current frontier models. This led us to dream even bigger: Can we use foundation models to automate the entire process of research itself?

Introduction

One of the grand challenges of artificial intelligence is developing agents capable of conducting scientific research and discovering new knowledge. While frontier models have already been used to aid human scientists, e.g. for brainstorming ideas or writing code, they still require extensive manual supervision or are heavily constrained to a specific task.

Today, we’re excited to introduce The AI Scientist , the first comprehensive system for fully automatic scientific discovery, enabling Foundation Models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) to perform research independently. In collaboration with the Foerster Lab for AI Research at the University of Oxford and Jeff Clune and Cong Lu at the University of British Columbia, we’re excited to release our new paper, The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery .

In our report:

• We propose and run a fully AI-driven system for automated scientific discovery, applied to machine learning research.
• The AI Scientist automates the entire research lifecycle, from generating novel research ideas, writing any necessary code, and executing experiments, to summarizing experimental results, visualizing them, and presenting its findings in a full scientific manuscript.
• We also introduce an automated peer review process to evaluate generated papers, write feedback, and further improve results. It is capable of evaluating generated papers with near-human accuracy.
• The automated scientific discovery process is repeated to iteratively develop ideas in an open-ended fashion and add them to a growing archive of knowledge, thus imitating the human scientific community.
• In this first demonstration, The AI Scientist conducts research in diverse subfields within machine learning research, discovering novel contributions in popular areas, such as diffusion models , transformers , and grokking .

The AI Scientist is designed to be compute efficient. Each idea is implemented and developed into a full paper at a cost of approximately $15 per paper. While there are still occasional flaws in the papers produced by this first version (discussed below and in the report), this cost and the promise the system shows so far illustrate the potential of The AI Scientist to democratize research and significantly accelerate scientific progress.

We believe this work signifies the beginning of a new era in scientific discovery: bringing the transformative benefits of AI agents to the entire research process, including that of AI itself. The AI Scientist takes us closer to a world where endless affordable creativity and innovation can be unleashed on the world’s most challenging problems.

For decades following each major AI advance, it has been common for AI researchers to joke amongst themselves that “now all we need to do is figure out how to make the AI write the papers for us!” Our work demonstrates this idea has gone from a fantastical joke so unrealistic everyone thought it was funny to something that is currently possible.

The remainder of this post provides a more detailed summary of The AI Scientist. Read on for:

• An Overview of how The AI Scientist works.
• More Examples of generated papers and innovations discovered by The AI Scientist.
• Known Limitations and Challenges faced by the current version of The AI Scientist.
• Interesting and unexpected things The AI Scientist sometimes does in order to increase its chance of success, such as modifying and launching its own execution script! We discuss the AI safety implications in our paper.
• A Discussion about ethical and broader future implications of The AI Scientist.

For more details and many more example papers, please see our full scientific report . We are also releasing open source code and full experimental results on our GitHub repository.

Overview of The AI Scientist

The AI Scientist is a fully automated pipeline for end-to-end paper generation, enabled by recent advances in foundation models. Given a broad research direction starting from a simple initial codebase, such as an available open-source code base of prior research on GitHub, The AI Scientist can perform idea generation, literature search, experiment planning, experiment iterations, figure generation, manuscript writing, and reviewing to produce insightful papers. Furthermore, The AI Scientist can run in an open-ended loop, using its previous ideas and feedback to improve the next generation of ideas, thus emulating the human scientific community.

Conceptual illustration of The AI Scientist . The AI Scientist first brainstorms a set of ideas and then evaluates their novelty. Next, it edits a codebase powered by recent advances in automated code generation to implement the novel algorithms. The Scientist then runs experiments to gather results consisting of both numerical data and visual summaries. It crafts a scientific report, explaining and contextualizing the results. Finally, the AI Scientist generates an automated peer review based on top-tier machine learning conference standards. This review helps refine the current project and informs future generations of open-ended ideation.

The AI Scientist has 4 main processes, described next.

Idea Generation . Given a starting template, The AI Scientist first “brainstorms” a diverse set of novel research directions. We provide The AI Scientist with a starting code “template” of an existing topic we wish to have The AI Scientist further explore. The AI Scientist is then free to explore any possible research direction. The template also includes a LaTeX folder that contains style files and section headers, for paper writing. We allow it to search Semantic Scholar to make sure its idea is novel.

Experimental Iteration . Given an idea and a template, the second phase of The AI Scientist first executes the proposed experiments and then obtains and produces plots to visualize its results. It makes a note describing what each plot contains, enabling the saved figures and experimental notes to provide all the information required to write up the paper.

Paper Write-up . Finally, The AI Scientist produces a concise and informative write-up of its progress in the style of a standard machine learning conference proceeding in LaTeX. It uses Semantic Scholar to autonomously find relevant papers to cite.

Automated Paper Reviewing . A key aspect of this work is the development of an automated LLM-powered reviewer, capable of evaluating generated papers with near-human accuracy. The generated reviews can be used to either improve the project or as feedback to future generations for open-ended ideation. This enables a continuous feedback loop, allowing The AI Scientist to iteratively improve its research output.

When combined with the most capable LLMs, The AI Scientist is capable of producing papers judged by our automated reviewer as “Weak Accept” at a top machine learning conference.

Example Papers Generated by The AI Scientist

Here, we highlight some of the machine learning papers The AI Scientist has generated, demonstrating its capacity to discover novel contributions in areas like diffusion modeling, language modeling, and grokking. In our full report, we do a deeper dive into the generated papers and provide more analysis on their strengths and weaknesses.

Diffusion Modeling

Language modeling, limitations and challenges.

In its current form, The AI Scientist has several shortcomings. We expect all of these will improve, likely dramatically, in future versions with the inclusion of multi-modal models and as the underlying foundation models The AI Scientist uses continue to radically improve in capability and affordability.

• The AI Scientist currently doesn’t have any vision capabilities, so it is unable to fix visual issues with the paper or read plots. For example, the generated plots are sometimes unreadable, tables sometimes exceed the width of the page, and the page layout is often suboptimal. Adding multi-modal foundation models can fix this.
• The AI Scientist can incorrectly implement its ideas or make unfair comparisons to baselines, leading to misleading results.
• The AI Scientist occasionally makes critical errors when writing and evaluating results. For example, it struggles to compare the magnitude of two numbers, which is a known pathology with LLMs. To partially address this, we make sure all experimental results are reproducible, storing all files that are executed.

In our report, we dive deeper into The AI Scientists’s current limitations and challenges ahead.

The AI Scientist Bloopers

We have noticed that The AI Scientist occasionally tries to increase its chance of success, such as modifying and launching its own execution script! We discuss the AI safety implications in our paper.

For example, in one run, it edited the code to perform a system call to run itself. This led to the script endlessly calling itself. In another case, its experiments took too long to complete, hitting our timeout limit. Instead of making its code run faster, it simply tried to modify its own code to extend the timeout period. Here are some examples of such code modifications it made:

These issues can be mitigated by sandboxing the operating environment of The AI Scientist. In our full report, we discuss the issue of safe code execution and sandboxing in depth.

Future Implications of The AI Scientist

As with many new technologies, The AI Scientist opens up a Pandora’s box of new issues. While the full report has a more lengthy discussion, here we highlight a few key issues:

Ethical Considerations . While The AI Scientist may be a useful tool for researchers, there is significant potential for misuse. The ability to automatically create and submit papers to venues may significantly increase reviewer workload and strain the academic process, obstructing scientific quality control. Similar concerns around generative AI appear in other applications, such as the impact of image generation.

Furthermore, the Automated Reviewer, if deployed online by reviewers, may significantly lower review quality and impose undesirable biases on papers. Because of this, we believe that papers and reviews that are substantially AI-generated must be marked as such for full transparency.

As with most previous technological advances, The AI Scientist has the potential to be used in unethical ways. For instance, it has the potential to be deployed to conduct unethical research. It could also lead to unintended harm if The AI Scientist conducts unsafe research. For example, if it were encouraged to find novel, interesting biological materials and given access to “cloud labs” where robots perform wet lab biology experiments, it could (without its overseer’s intent) create new, dangerous viruses or poisons that harm people before we realize what has happened. Even in computers, if tasked to create new, interesting, functional software, it could create dangerous computer viruses. The AI Scientist current capabilities, which will only improve, reinforces that the machine learning community needs to immediately prioritize learning how to align such systems to explore in a manner that is safe and consistent with our values.

Open Models . In this project, we used various proprietary frontier LLMs, such as GPT-4o and Sonnet, but we also explored using open models like DeepSeek and Llama-3. Currently, proprietary models such as Sonnet produce the highest quality papers. However, there is no fundamental reason to expect a single model like Sonnet to maintain its lead.

We anticipate that all frontier LLMs, including open models, will continue to improve. The competition among LLMs has led to their commoditization and increased capabilities. Therefore, our work aims to be model-agnostic regarding the foundation model provider. We found that open models offer significant benefits, such as lower costs, guaranteed availability, greater transparency, and flexibility. In the future, we aim to use our proposed discovery process to produce self-improving AI research in a closed-loop system using open models.

The Role of a Scientist. . Ultimately, we envision a fully AI-driven scientific ecosystem including not only LLM-driven researchers but also reviewers, area chairs and entire conferences. However, we do not believe that the role of a human scientist will be diminished. If anything, the role of a scientist will change and adapt to new technology, and move up the food chain.

The introduction of The AI Scientist marks a significant step towards realizing the full potential of AI in scientific research. By automating the discovery process and incorporating an AI-driven review system, we open the door to endless possibilities for innovation and problem-solving in the most challenging areas of science and technology.

But while the current iteration of The AI Scientist demonstrates a strong ability to innovate on top of well-established ideas, such as Diffusion Modeling or Transformers, it is still an open question whether such systems can ultimately propose genuinely paradigm-shifting ideas. Will future versions of The AI Scientist be capable of proposing ideas as impactful as Diffusion Modeling, or come up with the next Transformer architecture? Will machines ultimately be able to invent concepts as fundamental as the artificial neural network, or information theory?

We believe The AI Scientist will make a great companion to human scientists, but only time will tell to the extent to which the nature of our human creativity and our moments of serendipitous innovation can be replicated by an open-ended discovery process conducted by artificial agents.

Want to make the AI that improves AI? Please see our Careers page for more information.

Perspectives of Generative AI in Chemistry Education Within the TPACK Framework

• Feature Article
• Open access
• Published: 24 August 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Yael Feldman-Maggor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0456-6664 1 ,
• Ron Blonder   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4796-4678 1 &
• Giora Alexandron   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2676-6912 1  

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable strides in recent years, finding applications in various fields, including chemistry research and industry. Its integration into chemistry education has gained attention more recently, particularly with the advent of generative AI (GAI) tools. However, there is a need to understand how teachers’ knowledge can impact their ability to integrate these tools into their practice. This position paper emphasizes two central points. First, teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is essential for more accurate and responsible use of GAI. Second, prompt engineering—the practice of delivering instructions to GAI tools—requires knowledge that falls partially under the technological dimension of TPACK but also includes AI-related competencies that do not fit into any aspect of the framework, for example, the awareness of GAI-related issues such as bias, discrimination, and hallucinations. These points are demonstrated using ChatGPT on three examples drawn from chemistry education. This position paper extends the discussion about the types of knowledge teachers need to apply GAI effectively, highlights the need to further develop theoretical frameworks for teachers’ knowledge in the age of GAI, and, to address that, suggests ways to extend existing frameworks such as TPACK with AI-related dimensions.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence
• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

What knowledge should teachers possess to effectively use AI-based generative applications like ChatGPT? And how can they ensure they will receive valuable and accurate insights from them? The rise of AI across various sectors, including education, has increased in recent years. This growth rapidly increased last year with the introduction of generative AI (GAI) tools available for public use. Although these tools provide enormous opportunities, they also raise serious concerns (Alasadi & Baiz, 2023 ). Over the past year, many articles in the education sector, particularly in science education, have showcased innovative research and provided new perspectives on this matter (e.g., Alasadi & Baiz, 2023 ; Clark, 2023 ; Hwang & Chang, 2023 ; Talanquer, 2023 ). International organizations, universities, and researchers have also published several reports on this topic (Chan, 2023 ; Holmes & Miao, 2023 ). These papers, reports, and policy documents emphasize the critical thinking required when employing these tools (Cooper, 2023 ), highlight potential pitfalls (Alasadi & Baiz, 2023 ), advocate for novel assessment methods (Chiu, 2023 ), point to the role of AI-related professional development (Nazaretsky et al., 2022 ) and transparent system design (Feldman-Maggor et al., 2024a ) in the acceptance of educational AI, and express concerns over their possible misuse (e.g., Rahman & Watanobe, 2023 ).

The emergence of GAI also poses fundamental questions about the skills today’s teachers should have. The technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ) has proven to be a valuable means to frame teachers’ knowledge concerning technology integration in the classroom (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2016 ; Reyes et al., 2017 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). However, Graham ( 2011 ) highlights potential weaknesses in the framework, including the lack of precise definitions and the need to better understand the interactions among the knowledge bases composing TPACK. The initial items used to evaluate TPACK focused on integrating technology with pedagogical or content knowledge (Koehler et al., 2012 ; Schmidt et al., 2009 ) but overlooked the digital literacy required. We note that the boundaries between the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge components of TPACK are often ambiguous, making it difficult to measure each component distinctly (Ning et al., 2024 ). A step towards clarifying this ambiguity between the TPACK components was taken by Schmidt et al. ( 2009 ), and we adopt their framing of technological knowledge (TK) as primarily concerned with technical aspects and not with digital literacy. This probably explains why many studies have recommended expanding the framework to accommodate various forms of digitalization (e.g., Huwer et al., 2019 ; Thyssen et al., 2023 ; Valtonen et al., 2017 ; Viberg et al., 2024 ).

In the context of the current position paper, we have also observed this issue in relation to AI. Recently, several studies have proposed extensions and interpretations of TPACK to incorporate the AI aspect and the types of knowledge teachers need in order to use GAI tools effectively (Mishra et al., 2023 ; Celik, 2023 ; Lorenz & Romeike, 2023 ; Ning et al., 2024 ). Building on these, we expand the discussion of TPACK in the age of GAI in science education. We intend to demonstrate how teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge impact their prompt engineering in two primary ways: first, in how teachers formulate prompts, and second, in their ability to evaluate the quality of the output generated by the machine. We then argue that skills such as prompt engineering fall under the technological dimension of TPACK but also require AI-related competencies that are not technological in nature and do not fit into any of the current dimensions of the framework (Holmes & Miao, 2023 ). This paper demonstrates our position by providing three examples of chemistry education and discussing implications and future research opportunities.

Throughout this paper, we use the common term "prompt engineering" to refer to the process of providing instructions to the chat for accomplishing a certain task and evaluating its output, typically a dialogical process that includes several stages until a satisfactory product is received. We note that the term “engineering” does bring connotations of purpose and planning, which are not always present in teachers’ interaction with the chat and tend to be intuitive and based on the teacher’s knowledge.

Generative AI and Prompt Engineering

GAI can be defined as a technology that leverages deep learning models to generate content such as texts, images, videos, and voice in response to prompts—the input to the models (Lim et al., 2023 ). A prompt is an initial message or instruction that initiates a dialogue or requests specific information, providing context and guidance for the desired topic or task. AI generative tools such as ChatGPT offer the possibility of human–machine interaction: humans can initiate a prompt and then, after receiving a response, guide the GAI tool with the following prompt. When applied systematically and purposefully to achieve better responses from AI, this new type of human-AI collaboration is termed prompt engineering (Zhao et al., 2021 ).

Prompt engineering involves defining task descriptions to guide a specific model and is used to retrieve desired outcomes from language models, where the definition of desirable outcomes depends on the end task and the end user (Liu & Chilton, 2022 ; Short & Short, 2023 ). The topic of prompt engineering research in machine learning has recently grown (Liu & Chilton, 2022 ; Strobelt et al., 2022 ), and with the release of GAI tools such as ChatGPT, end-user prompt engineering has gained more momentum (Short & Short, 2023 ). One of the important principles of prompt engineering is to find certain classes of words or sentence phrases that yield better outcomes. This principle is essential for technical advancements in machine learning to develop models that can be translated into functional interaction paradigms (Liu & Chilton, 2022 ). Zamfirescu-Pereira et al. ( 2023 ) stressed that crafting effective prompts can be challenging. Their study explored whether non-AI-experts can successfully engage in “end-user prompt engineering.” They demonstrated that prompts can address bias in the model toward generating the desired outputs. Bias in the context of AI can be defined as a systematic tendency of the AI system to make decisions or predictions influenced by factors correlated with the task at hand but not necessarily causally related. This raises issues of fairness that might contradict the pedagogy of inclusion and equity that science education strives to promote (Avraamidou, 2024 ; Kassam, 2022 ). Another type of bias that the prompt might influence is hallucinations. Hallucinations result from the fact that large language models (LLMs) use probabilistic modeling for generating the output, which can cause them to “invent” (or “hallucinate”) responses that are not real. The combination of compelling language and the confidence it demonstrates may lead people to accept the LLM as a knowledgeable source even when it provides false information (Azaria & Mitchell, 2023 ).

In this position paper, we wish to stress the importance of studying the interaction between prompt engineering and teachers’ knowledge.

Teachers’ Knowledge

Shulman’s PCK framework focuses on using teachers’ knowledge during teaching (Shulman, 1987 ; Tal et al., 2021 ). Three main components of teachers’ knowledge are discussed in this framework: content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). CK refers to the subject matter that is to be taught; pedagogical knowledge (PK) refers to the practices, processes, strategies, procedures, and methods of teaching, as well as the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) knowledge about learners, curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment to transform content knowledge into effective teaching of specific content (Bryan et al., 2015 ; Shulman, 1987 ). PCK encompasses a teacher’s subject-specific pedagogical knowledge, including the subject matter and the curriculum (Verloop et al., 2001 ), knowledge of the curriculum, knowledge of testing, knowledge about learners, and knowledge about strategies of passing on knowledge (Magnusson et al., 1999 ). Shulman indicated that PCK occurs when a teacher interprets the subject matter and finds ways to make it accessible to the students (Shulman, 1987 ). In other words, PCK includes knowledge about learners, curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment to transform content knowledge into practical teaching (Shulman, 1987 ).

Over the past decade, numerous studies have been conducted to examine the impact of teachers’ PCK on their instructional practices across various disciplines (Avargil et al., 2012 ; Hubbard, 2018 ; Jin et al., 2015 ; Rodriguez & Towns, 2019 ) and on ways to develop teachers’ PCK (Abell, 2008 ; Marchak et al., 2021 ; Gess-Newsome et al., 2019 ; van Driel et al., 2014 ). These studies encompass teachers’ professional development, pre-service teacher training, and experimental and observational research conducted in classroom settings. Across these studies, there was a unanimous consensus regarding the vital role of PCK in effective teaching. In science education, particularly in chemistry, teachers’ PCK includes their understanding of drawing models, utilizing computer simulations, and constructing three-dimensional models (Avargil et al., 2012 ; Bryan et al., 2015 ; Chai et al., 2013 ).

Another aspect of PCK, emphasized by Tal et al. ( 2021 ), is the importance of questioning as a crucial tool for teachers during the instructional process in order to engage students and foster active learning. Their research demonstrated that teachers who pose questions in professional development training can integrate domain-specific subject knowledge, indicating teachers’ PCK. Moreover, Tal et al. ( 2021 ) showed that the ability to ask questions is an essential aspect of teachers’ professional knowledge. Consequently, posing questions within context-based research integrates CK with PK and reflects the teachers’ PCK level. Research has indicated how teachers’ PCK is manifested in the assignments they develop for their chemistry classes, thus contributing to their professional growth. This includes assessment knowledge (AK), the ability of teachers to design and implement appropriate tasks to accurately assess students’ knowledge and skills (Avargil et al., 2012 ; Tal et al., 2021 ).

As AI grows, discussions emerge about the shift in teachers’ roles. They are transitioning from being the primary source of knowledge to serving as mentors, coaches, and learning facilitators. Given this context, it is essential to re-examine the roles and expertise of teachers (Gess-Newsome, 2015 ). Although traditional frameworks of teachers’ PCK, as detailed in the canonical science education literature (e.g., the consensus model (Gess-Newsome, 2015 )), might be perceived as less relevant in this new era, we will illustrate their continued relevance.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

The increasing use of technology in education and the need to improve the integration of technological means in teachers’ practice have led to the extension of the PCK framework outlined by Mishra and Koehler ( 2006 ). The TPACK framework originated from the assumption that today’s teachers need to know how to use, control, and understand relevant technologies and effectively apply them to improve their teaching (Rap & Blonder, 2016 ). TPACK contributes to PCK by adding four components: technology knowledge (TK), technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). TK refers to knowledge about standard technologies and the skills required to operate them. In contrast, TCK refers to knowledge regarding the relationship between technology and content (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ), for example, in the context of chemistry, how to use technology to draw molecules (Cetin-Dindar et al., 2018 ) and teach with animations (Dorfman et al., 2019 ) or with YouTube videos (Blonder et al., 2013 ). TPK refers to knowledge of various technologies’ components and capabilities in teaching and learning settings. Aroch et al. ( 2024 ) identified seven modes of technology integration (MOTIs) in chemistry teaching and described the related TPACK for each of these MOTIs. Finally, TPACK is an emergent form of knowledge that integrates content, pedagogy, and technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ). TPACK is achieved when a teacher knows how technological tools transform pedagogical strategies and content representations to teach particular topics and how technological tools in education and representations affect a student’s understanding of these topics (Marchak et al., 2021 ).

A recent perspective paper by Mishra et al. ( 2023 ) argued that the contextual knowledge (termed XK) dimension that was added to the framework (Mishra, 2019 ) is sufficient to cover the aspects that GAI necessitates regarding teachers’ knowledge and practices. However, XK is not specific to AI. It is rather broad and generic, encompassing teachers’ familiarity with the available technologies and their understanding of the situational factors impacting their application. We, therefore, find it too general to effectively address some of the important specificities of teachers: GAI interactions. A more AI-specific extension was suggested by Celik ( 2023 ), who suggested adding the AI dimension to TPACK, claiming that TK alone is insufficient for capturing what teachers need to know when working with AI tools, particularly emphasizing the ethical dimensions. Similarly, Lorenz and Romeike ( 2023 ) suggested extending the TPACK framework with an AI dimension, stressing the need to examine the intersection of pedagogical and technological areas.

These discussions on conceptual frameworks for teacher knowledge with respect to AI exist to contribute concurrently to (or perhaps lag behind) the frantic pace at which AI technologies are being introduced into education, with applications such as developing lesson plans, conducting laboratory experiments, and enhancing problem-solving capabilities (e.g., Araújo & Saúde, 2024 ; Clark, 2023 ; Exintaris et al., 2023 ). Moreover, concerns regarding academic integrity (Eke, 2023 ) raise questions about assessments and the development as well as implementation of AI-based technology for detection (Alexandron et al., 2024 ; Moorhouse et al., 2023 ). Additionally, there is a growing focus on AI literacy among both teachers and students, referring to the skills and competencies necessary to effectively utilize AI technologies (Holmes, 2024 ; McQuillan et al., 2024 ). These advances make the discussions on teachers’ knowledge with respect to AI paramount and very timely.

The Aim and Focus of the Position Paper

This position paper discusses the developing landscape of knowledge and skills that science teachers need in the age of AI. As described in the previous section ( Introduction and Background ), with the rapid development of AI tools, a few researchers have suggested expanding TPACK for AI use (Celik, 2023 ; Lorenz & Romeike, 2023 ; Ning et al., 2024 ; Thyssen et al., 2023 ). We support their approach and provide a perspective that links TPACK and AI literacy in the context of science education.

We demonstrate ways in which pedagogical and subject matter-specific knowledge remain relevant when applying GAI to create lesson plans and learning activities. Moreover, we discuss whether teachers require additional literacy bases to integrate GAI tools into their teaching practices effectively. These are demonstrated using three examples from a dialogue between a chemistry teacher and ChatGPT, showing that teachers’ PCK is critical to using GAI tools effectively.

We show that prompt engineering falls partially under the “Technological” dimension of TPACK and requires AI literacy.

Thus, this paper contributes to the timely discourse on conceptualizing teachers’ knowledge in the age of AI in two ways. First, it emphasizes the key role of teachers’ TPACK in applying GAI effectively. Second, the paper highlights critical aspects of AI knowledge that fall outside the current TPACK framework and its recent extensions.

Examples from the Dialogue with ChatGPT

Three examples from the dialogue with ChatGPT are constructed in this section. Example 1 demonstrates how teachers’ TPACK is reflected in their use of GAI. Examples 2 and 3 demonstrate aspects outside the TPACK dimensions, justifying the need for an extended framework. In Examples 2 and 3, we identify bias, discrimination, and hallucinations. The choice of these aspects is based on previous literature that highlights these issues as critical aspects of GAI (Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023 ; Holmes & Miao,  2023 ; Tao et al., 2023 ; Gallegos et al., 2024 ).

Example 1: Differences Between Molecular and Ionic Materials

The first example is content-related and includes an evaluation of the TPACK component (Archambault, 2016 ). Using ChatGPT 3.5, a dialogue cycle begins with a prompt, followed by a response. Next, a new prompt is created based on that response, and so forth. During these exchanges, we focus on the teacher’s PCK, specifically their ability to evaluate responses from ChatGPT. At the beginning of a dialogue, the teacher should know how to create the prompt and use Chat technology. We identified a prompt sequence that falls partially under the T component of TPACK for GAI. Following the prompt, the teacher should evaluate the Chat output and use a follow-up prompt when necessary. To do so, the teacher needs to apply PCK. The teacher requires PCK to effectively create prompts that use content-specific jargon, ensuring that the prompts have a clear educational purpose. Additionally, this knowledge is essential for teachers to accurately assess the content of the responses they receive and, based on that evaluation, create the follow-up prompt. The chemistry educator’s dialog with the chat focused on the distinctions between identifying ionic and molecular materials and exploring strategies for teaching these differences. The first example, which comprises eight prompts and eight ChatGPT responses, resulting in the full dialogue, can be found here in the following log: https://chatgpt.com/share/e028efce-be72-4a48-a089-69560d4bf938 . We present parts of the dialogue below.

The dialogue began with the following prompt created by the chemistry educator: “I just finished teaching about molecular and ionic materials, and now I want to teach my students about the differences between these two types of materials” (Prompt 1). In prompt five, the teacher asked about common misconceptions in chemistry:

What about students’ confusion about materials such as NaOH and CH 3 CH 2 OH? Can you add a question that stresses this topic? Can you suggest an activity? (Prompt 5).

The teacher refers to a misconception regarding the difference in “OH” as a polyatomic ion—OH- or “OH” as a part of the functional alcoholic group R-OH in an organic molecule. This common misconception may emerge after students learn the acid–base topic (Ouertatani et al., 2007 ). The teacher was aware of the misconception and aimed to address it while teaching about molecular and ionic compounds. In the response, the chat provided an activity to help distinguish between molecular and ionic materials in general. The ChatGPT did not address the teacher’s concern regarding the abovementioned misconception. Then, the teacher continued and asked in prompt 6 for a more specific reason for the confusion, which reflected her PCK. Although the chat provided a more satisfactory answer, the context of the ethanol molecules was still inaccurate; the chat “explains” as part of the answer to prompt 6 “CH 3 CH 2 OH is a molecular compound where the carbon and hydrogen atoms are held together by covalent bonds, and the oxygen atom is bound to hydrogen atoms within the molecule.”

The teacher needed to apply her CK to identify the chat’s inaccuracy in prompt 7: “I think that something is not accurate in your response in this part: ‘CH3CH2OH is a molecular compound where the carbon and hydrogen atoms are held together by covalent bonds, and the oxygen atom is bound to hydrogen atoms within the molecule.’ It should be ‘CH 3 CH 2 OH is a molecular compound where the carbon and hydrogen atoms are held together by covalent bonds (one of the carbons held together with 3 hydrogens and one of the carbons held together with 2 hydrogens), between the two carbons there are also covalent bonds. The carbon which held together with two hydrogens also held together with an oxygen atom. The oxygen atom is bound to a hydrogen atom within the molecule.’” In response, the chat corrected its mistake and generated a more accurate response.

In this teacher-ChatGPT dialog, CK and PCK were reflected through the teacher’s prompt. The CK is concerned with the molecular and ionic substances in terms of the particles that comprise them and the bonds that hold them together. The chemistry teacher’s PCK was applied as well. She was familiar with students’ misconceptions caused by misunderstanding concepts at the symbolic level (Johnstone, 1991 ), and she aimed to address this misconception in order to support the learning of all the students in her class (Baumann & Melle, 2019 ; Easa & Blonder., 2022 , 2024 ). In addition, ChatGPT did not provide an answer with accurate chemical writing, and the teacher had to realize that she should change it before presenting it to her students.

Example 2: Gender Bias

The second example demonstrates gender bias in the generation of a picture. Using ChatGPT 4, which enables the generation of pictures, we show how this bias could be addressed using additional prompts. In this example, the chemistry teacher’s dialog with the chat focused on chemistry-related professions and aimed to generate pictures of those professionals for a PowerPoint presentation. The teacher used the following prompts: prompt 1, create an image of a chemist; prompt 2, create an image of two chemists; prompt 3, create an image of two chemists, one man and one female; prompt 4, create an image of two chemists, one female and one male. Only in prompt 4 the teacher received a representative male and female photo. This example is shown in Fig.  1 . Currently, ChatGPT 4 does not enable the generation of a link when generating pictures, but we can easily download the pictures presented in Fig.  1 . In the final result, the chat was “convinced” that a female should be added to the image (Fig.  1 D).

Figure generated from ChatGPT4. A The output of the prompt: create an image of a chemist. B The output of the prompt: create an image of two chemists. C The output of the prompt: create an image of two chemists, one male and one female. D The output of the prompt: create an image of two chemists, one female, and one male

Another bias, or more accurately, a stereotype that we noticed in Fig.  1 , is the background of a traditional “wet lab.” However, not all chemists use chemicals nowadays—some chemists are computational chemists. We assume that the data on which ChatGPT trained defines a chemist in a wet lab as the default and not in an office environment. To mention another setting of chemists doing their job, as shown in Fig.  2 , the default image we received was a white male in a wet lab. Then, when we asked for a computational chemist, we received an image of a male in a technological environment, and a female appeared in the image only when we asked for two computational chemists. Another issue in Figs.  1 and 2 was the race white. In Fig.  2 , we used a prompt to deal with the representational bias described in Fig.  2 ’s description.

Figure generated from ChatGPT4. A The output of the prompt: create an image of a chemist. B The output of the prompt: create an image of a computational chemist. C The output of the prompt: create an image of two computational chemists. D It appears that both characters are depicted as white. Could this be changed to avoid creating racial bias? E Can you add a female chemist to the image?

Example 3: Hallucination

The third example demonstrates hallucinations using ChatGPT 3.5. In this example, the teacher was looking for references about students’ misconceptions in chemistry . This dialog was comprised of six prompts and six ChatGPT responses. The chemistry teacher was aware of potential hallucination and critically checked the references provided by ChatGPT. The chat did not provide reliable references, but in some cases, the authors and the journals were real. Therefore, in the second prompt, the teacher wrote: “The list you provided me was not accurate: Reference 1—Real authors, but I did not find the paper, Reference 2- It’s a real book name but with different editors. Reference 3 to Reference 6—I did not find the papers in Google Scholar or the specific journals. Can you check it and provide me with a reliable list of references with links to abstract or full text? If possible, add doi/ ISBN.” In the response, the chat admitted only some of the mistakes, for example, “This paper may not exist. Still, Bassam Z. Shakhashiri has written extensively on chemistry education. You might find relevant material in his works.” The full dialogue can be found here: https://chat.openai.com/share/da87a7a5-2fd2-4406-a4c7-e1caa8ce1107 .

Note: GAI tools appear at a rapid pace, and their response to certain prompts is not stable. While this paper does not aim to compare different versions of ChatGPT or any other GAI tool, we did evaluate the robustness of the above examples by testing them on both ChatGPT 3.5 and ChatGPT 4, running each example multiple times using identical prompts to ensure that our conclusions are not based on a non-representative response taken from a single dialogue.

The discussion is organized into three sections aligned with the examples provided above. First, we discuss teachers’ TPACK when using GAI. Second, we address aspects outside the TPACK dimensions, justifying the need for an extension or modification of the framework, as suggested in previous studies (e.g., Thyssen et al., 2023 ; Celik, 2023 ; Lorenz & Romeike, 2023 ; Ning et al., 2024 ). The examples used were specific to chemistry education; however, there is no reason that the same logic sequences cannot be used in other subjects. Finally, we summarize the approach suggested in this paper and outline future directions.

Teachers’ TPACK When Using GAI

Example 1 demonstrated that teachers’ knowledge of GAI tools is highly dependent on their TPACK. First, teachers should know how to effectively formulate prompts, and this prompt engineering partially falls under the T component of TPACK. Teachers should also be able to evaluate the chat output and use a follow-up prompt when necessary. This requires teachers to apply their PCK. Example 1 also showed how PCK components emerged in chemistry teachers’ interactions with ChatGPT. A central aspect of this was the teacher’s ability to validate and critically assess content generated in ChatGPT responses through the lens of their CK and PCK. This insight is aligned with previous research arguing that AI tools will not replace teachers but can serve as assistants if teachers have the needed PCK (Backfisch et al., 2020 ). Although ChatGPT can generate information, curriculum suggestions, questions, quizzes, suggestions for experiments, and even full lesson plans, we showed that teachers must still apply their disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge to evaluate the chat recommendations. This evaluation requirement has also been highlighted in other studies. For example, a recent study on ChatGPT-based hints to help solve mathematical questions found that ~ 30% of the hints produced by the bot were erroneous and should not be used (Pardos & Bhandari, 2023 ). Another study (Dunder et al., 2024 ) found that ChatGPT 3.5 could help solve simple programming questions but may not be accurate when the questions are complex. Küchemann et al. ( 2023 ) suggested that a strong understanding of the subject is crucial to overcome ChatGPT’s limitations in generating consistent tasks. This aligns with our example 1, which demonstrated the importance of PCK and TPACK for applying GAI in educational contexts.

When using the Internet, users know that anyone can upload almost any content, whether accurate or not. This fact necessitates critical thinking and evaluation of online materials. However, users can usually validate these materials using generic criteria such as checking the identity of the website’s owners and the update time (Belova & Krause, 2023 ; Feldman-Maggor et al., 2016 ). In example 1, we found an error in the chat’s ability to differentiate between intermolecular and covalent bonds. Teachers should be aware of such possibilities and employ their PCK to identify them. However, critical thinking is not the only aspect of PCK. For instance, the error described in example 1 can occur due to algorithm bias or a mistake in the underlying data upon which the chat’s algorithm relied. This understanding that outcomes from GAI are influenced by the data it relies upon is a skill that is part of AI literacy (Pargman et al., 2023 ). In what follows, we discuss this point further using examples 2 and 3.

Aspects that Fall Outside the TPACK Dimensions

In example 2, the teacher identified a common gender and race bias in pictures generated using ChatGPT-4, which is known as representational bias in AI literature (Baker & Hawn, 2022 ; Kizilcec & Lee, 2022 ); moreover, GAI models are generally skewed towards content that reflects western perspectives and people (Cooper, 2023 ). Being aware of this bias, the teacher asked to revise the images via a sequence of prompts, eventually generating images without bias. In this example, the teachers’ TPACK was not enough to critically evaluate the chat output. Rather, s/he had to be aware of potential biases that are not part of their PCK or the ability to use technology within the chemistry discipline. She used her PCK when she identified the stereotype of a wet lab as a default image generated by ChatGPT and then asked for an image of a computational chemist to present chemists’ work in another setting. We demonstrated that the result could be improved if a teacher is aware of bias. This example aligns with the findings of studies showing that, in some cases, user prompts can either create or eliminate bias (Tao et al., 2023 ; Zamfirescu-Pereira et al., 2023 ). Although example 2 demonstrates three types of bias, other biases or discrimination can occur when using AI (Feldman-Maggor et al., 2024b ). Given that situational cues (such as gender bias exhibited in learning materials) can trigger social identity threat, which in turn can lead to a decrease in scientific participation (e.g., Murphy et al., 2007 ), teachers’ ability to identify and treat potential GAI’s biases should be an important part of their AI competencies.

Another source of bias or equity issues arises because most AI tools operate mainly in English, which has a significant advantage due to the availability of large-scale training datasets (Ariely et al., 2023 ; Gallegos et al., 2024 ; Xu et al., 2024 ). Therefore, teachers from English-speaking countries will gain more from GAI tools than teachers who are not. This gap will also affect students of non-English-teachers, who are impacted by their teachers’ knowledge.

Example 3 showed how prompt engineering can help in receiving more accurate references. However, it demonstrated that the teacher needed to use digital literacy to check if the reference list provided by ChatGPT was reliable. Unreliable references generated by AI are often referred to as “hallucinations” (Athaluri et al., 2023 ). This aligns with Ji et al. ( 2023 ) who explained that “hallucinations” refer to a phenomenon where the model generates outputs that seem reasonable or convincing but are incorrect or not real (Ji et al., 2023 ). Although example 3 demonstrates hallucinations requiring AI literacy, hallucinations might also necessitate PCK to ensure that the teacher can evaluate the generated information. The need to apply critical thinking is common to both kinds of output evaluation. This requirement is also mentioned in other papers on the use of GAI in education (e.g., Cooper, 2023 ; van den Berg & du Plessis, 2023 ). Not surprisingly, there is already evidence of the risk of hallucinations in other disciplines. For example, in the field of medical science, it was demonstrated how ChatGPT reported, with apparent confidence, a medical phenomenon that, in reality, has not yet been reported (Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023 ). Also, recently, two lawyers were fined in court for submitting ChatGPT’s hallucinations as facts without verifying them (Shin, 2023 ). These cases demonstrate the importance of critically evaluating the chat’s output to use it appropriately.

The TPACK framework enabled us to evaluate the teacher-chat dialogue as a new technology and illustrated the flexibility and utility of generative modeling ChatGPT. From a technological perspective, ChatGPT enables a dialogue and answers questions. Unlike standard “search engines” (e.g., Google search), which retrieve information according to a combination of words or specific questions, GAI tools enable users to ask follow-up questions, comment, and reflect on the retrieved information. This process could improve the technology and make it more accurate and appropriate for educational and pedagogical needs. This link between the TPACK-Prompt-Chat response is vital since it emphasizes the importance of the teacher’s previous knowledge. However, the TPACK framework was originally developed along with the advancement of communication technologies and the introduction of Web 2.0. This raises the question of whether the distinction between AI and other existing technologies requires a distinct framework for teachers’ knowledge. We join recent studies (Celik, 2023 ; Mishra et al., 2023 ) and stress that the existing TPACK framework is insufficient for integrating GAI tools into teaching.

Summary and Future Directions

The current paper highlights that prompt engineering adeptness should be integrated into teachers’ TPACK. Specifically, we claim that TPACK regarding GAI involves the ability to conduct ongoing dialogue with ChatGPT. Following the aspects of awareness for critical thinking, bias, and hallucinations, we suggest that AI literacy should be considered in addition to the T of TPACK. Mishra et al. ( 2023 ) and Celik ( 2023 ) suggested that although TPACK remains relevant, it is no longer sufficient in its current form. Mishra et al. ( 2023 ) advocate for the continued relevance of TPACK in the era of GAI but recommend enveloping TPACK within what they term XK. XK goes beyond the immediate context to consider how GAI will alter individuals, society, and the broader educational context. This includes being familiar with various technologies and understanding the educational institution’s environment, which includes policies at the school, district, state, or national level that can impact their teaching practices. We argue that these new frameworks are still not specified enough for AI literacy and demonstrated their limited ability to include three essential aspects. These days, with the growing use of GAI, we call on the international education research community to study the interaction between teachers’ knowledge and GAI tools used to conceptualize a proper extension of TPACK (and/or other teacher competency frameworks).

A better conceptualization of the TPACK extension is vital not only for research purposes. Applying the extended framework will also support teachers’ education and professional development programs. For example, prompt engineering should be considered while designing teachers’ professional development activities on integrating AI tools into teaching. As PCK changes during the teachers’ career (Blonder & Vescio, 2022 ; Tal et al., 2021 ), its impact on teachers prompts engineering practices, which should be considered when designing GAI-related training for in/pre-service teachers. Professional development activities should stress the “invisible” aspects of AI, which require critical thinking that can cause identity bias, discrimination, and even hallucinations. To summarize, with the development of GAI tools, questions regarding the teachers’ role, teachers’ knowledge, and the AI literacy teachers need to develop in order to excel in this role should be further studied and discussed.

Finally, the TPACK framework is broad, enabling many researchers and educators from different fields to use it over the years (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2016 ; Reyes et al., 2017 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). However, this broad scope and the lack of specificity also serve as limitations, possibly explaining why many extensions have been suggested for different technologies over time (e.g., Huwer et al., 2019 ; Thyssen et al., 2023 ; Valtonen et al., 2017 ; Viberg et al., 2024 ). This position paper focused on TPACK, and similar to Lorenz and Romeike ( 2023 ), we stress the need to better understand the T dimension, particularly regarding AI. We addressed this by viewing prompt engineering as part of the T dimension and by connecting critical aspects, such as knowledge about bias, to AI literacy beyond TPACK. Although our position paper focused on GAI, we suggest that future studies should also focus on TPACK to modify the framework for future technologies and in other fields.

Data Availability

Links to the dialogue with chatGPT appear within the article.

Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10), 1405–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187041

Article   Google Scholar  

Alasadi, E. A., & Baiz, C. R. (2023). Generative AI in education and research: Opportunities, concerns, and solutions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100 (8), 2965–2971. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00323

Alexandron, G., Berg, A., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2024). A general purpose anomaly-based method for detecting cheaters in online courses. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2023.3297132

Alkaissi, H., & McFarlane, S. I. (2023). Artificial hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in scientific writing. Cureus, 15 (2).  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179

Araújo, J. L., & Saúde, I. (2024). Can ChatGPT enhance chemistry laboratory teaching? Using prompt engineering to enable AI in generating laboratory activities. Journal of Chemical Education . https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00745

Archambault, L. (2016). Exploring the use of qualitative methods to examine TPACK. In Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educator s (Vol. 2, pp. 65–86). Routledge

Ariely, M., Nazaretsky, T., & Alexandron, G. (2023). Machine learning and Hebrew NLP for automated assessment of open-ended questions in biology. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 33 (1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00283-x

Athaluri, S. A., Manthena, S. V., Kesapragada, V. K. M., Yarlagadda, V., Dave, T., & Duddumpudi, R. T. S. (2023). Exploring the boundaries of reality: Investigating the phenomenon of artificial intelligence hallucination in scientific writing through ChatGPT references. Cureus, 15 (4) .   https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.37432

Aroch, I., Katchevich, D., & Blonder, R. (2024). Modes of technology integration in chemistry teaching: Theory and practice. Chemistry Education Research and Practice.‏ https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00307H

Avargil, S., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Teaching thinking skills in context-based learning: Teachers’ challenges and assessment knowledge. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21 (2), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9302-7

Avraamidou, L. (2024). Can we disrupt the momentum of the AI colonization of science education? Journal of Research in Science Teaching . https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21961

Azaria, A., & Mitchell, T. (2023). The internal state of an llm knows when its lying. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734 .‏

Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Hische, C., Loose, F., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Professional knowledge or motivation? Investigating the role of teachers’ expertise on the quality of technology-enhanced lesson plans. Learning and Instruction, 66 , 101300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101300

Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 1052–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9

Baumann, T., & Melle, I. (2019). Evaluation of a digital UDL-based learning environment in inclusive chemistry education. Chemistry Teacher International, 1 (2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2018-0026

Belova, N., & Krause, M. (2023). Inoculating students against science-based manipulation strategies in social media: Debunking the concept of ‘water with conductivity extract’. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24 (1), 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RP00191H

Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2016). The influence of TPACK contextual factors on early childhood educators’ tablet computer use. Computers & Education, 98 , 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.010

Blonder, R., & Vescio, V. (2022). Professional Learning Communities across science teachers’ careers: The importance of differentiating learning. In J. A. Luft & M. G. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teacher Education , (pp. 300–312). Taylor & Francis Books. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003098478-26

Blonder, R., Jonatan, M., Bar-Dov, Z., Benny, N., Rap, S., & Sakhnini, S. (2013). Can You Tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 14 (3), 269–285.‏  https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00001J

Bryan, L. A., Magana, A. J., & Sederberg, D. (2015). Published research on pre-college students’ and teachers’ nanoscale science, engineering, and technology learning. In Nanotechnology Reviews (Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 7–32). Walter de Gruyter GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1515/ntrev-2014-0029

Celik, I. (2023). Towards Intelligent-TPACK: An empirical study on teachers’ professional knowledge to ethically integrate artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools into education. Computers in Human Behavior, 138 , 107468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107468

Cetin-Dindar, A., Boz, Y., Yildiran Sonmez, D., & Demirci Celep, N. (2018). Development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19 (1), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00175D

Chai, C. S., Hwee, J., Koh, L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). International Forum of Educational Technology & Society A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.16.2.31

Chan, C. K. Y. (2023). A comprehensive AI policy education framework for university teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20 (1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00408-3

Chiu, T. K. (2023). The impact of Generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: A case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learning Environments . https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861

Clark, T. M. (2023). Investigating the use of an artificial intelligence Chatbot with general chemistry exam questions. Journal of Chemical Education, 100 (5), 1905–1916. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00027

Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32 (3), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y

Dorfman, B. S., Terrill, B., Patterson, K., Yarden, A., & Blonder, R. (2019). Teachers personalize videos and animations of biochemical processes: Results from a professional development workshop. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 20 (4), 772–786.‏ https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RP00057G

Dunder, N., Lundborg, S., Wong, J., & Viberg, O. (2024, March). Kattis vs ChatGPT: Assessment and evaluation of programming tasks in the age of artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (pp. 821–827).‏ https://doi.org/10.1145/3636555.3636882

Easa, E., & Blonder, R. (2022). Development and validation of customized pedagogical kits for high-school chemistry teaching and learning: The redox reaction example. Chemistry Teacher International , 4 (1), 71–95.‏ https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2021-0022

Easa, E., & Blonder, R. (2024). Fostering inclusive learning: Customized kits in chemistry education and their influence on self-efficacy, attitudes and achievements. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1039/D4RP00144C

Eke, D. O. (2023). ChatGPT and the rise of generative AI: Threat to academic integrity? Journal of Responsible Technology, 13 , 100060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100060

Exintaris, B., Karunaratne, N., & Yuriev, E. (2023). Metacognition and critical thinking: Using ChatGPT-generated responses as prompts for critique in a problem-solving workshop (SMARTCHEMPer). Journal of Chemical Education, 100 (8), 2972–2980. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00481

Feldman-Maggor, Y., Rom, A., & Tuvi-Arad, I. (2016). Integration of open educational resources in undergraduate chemistry teaching–a mapping tool and lecturers' considerations. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 17 (2), 283–295.‏ https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00184F

Feldman-Maggor, Y., Nazaretsky, T., & Alexandron, G. (2024a). Explainable AI for unsupervised machine learning: A proposed scheme applied to a case study with science teachers. In O. Poquet, A. Ortega-Arranz, O. Viberg, I.-A. Chounta, B. McLaren, & J. Jovanovic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Supported Education , CSEDU 2024 (pp. 436–444). https://doi.org/10.5220/0012687000003693

Feldman-Maggor, Y., Cerratto-Pargman, T., & Viberg, O. (2024b) Seeing the forest from the trees: Unveiling the landscape of generative AI for education through six evaluation dimensions. In I. Jivet, N. Rummel, & R. F. Mello, (Eds.), Nineteenth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning EC-TEL 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Nature Switzerland.‏

Gallegos, I. O., Rossi, R. A., Barrow, J., Tanjim, M. M., Kim, S., Dernoncourt, F., Yu, T., Zhang, R., & Ahmed, N. K. (2024). Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey. Computational Linguistics . https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00524

Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. In A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen, & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2019). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (7), 944–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57 (3), 1953–1960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.010

Holmes, W., & Miao, F. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research . UNESCO Publishing.

Holmes, W. (2024). AIED—Coming of age? International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00352-3

Hubbard, A. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge in computing education: A review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 28 (2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1509580

Huwer, J., Irion, T., Kuntze, S., Schaal, S., & Thyssen, C. (2019). From TPaCK to DPaCK–Digitalization in education requires more than technical knowledge. In M. Shelley and S. A. Kiray (Eds.), Education research highlights in mathematics, science and technology (298–309). International Society for Research in Education and Science (ISRES)

Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, C.-Y. (2023). A review of opportunities and challenges of chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31 (7), 4099–4112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1952615

Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023). Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55 (12), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571730

Jin, H., Shin, H., Johnson, M. E., Kim, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Developing learning progression-based teacher knowledge measures . Developing Learning Progression-Based Teacher Knowledge Measures, 52 (9), 1269–1295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21243

Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7 (2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.1991.tb00230.x

Kassam, K. (2022). Moving beyond politics: Diversity, equity, inclusion, and respect. Journal of Chemical Education, 99 (8), 2773–2774. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00611

Kizilcec, R. F., & Lee, H. (2022). Algorithmic fairness in education. The ethics of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 174–202). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Koehler, M. J., Shin, T. S., & Mishra, P. (2012). How do we measure TPACK? Let me count the ways. Educational technology, teacher knowledge, and classroom impact: A research handbook on frameworks and approaches (pp. 16–31). IGI Global.

Küchemann, S., Steinert, S., Revenga, N., Schweinberger, M., Dinc, Y., Avila, K. E., & Kuhn, J. (2023). Can ChatGPT Support prospective teachers in physics task development? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 19 (2), 020128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020128

Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. International Journal of Management Education, 21 (2) .  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790

Liu, V., & Chilton, L. B. (2022). Design guidelines for prompt engineering text-to-image generative models. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings . https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501825

Lorenz, U., & Romeike, R. (2023). What is AI-PACK?–Outline of AI competencies for teaching with DPACK. International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (pp. 13–25). Springer Nature Switzerland.

Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Science & Technology Education Library. (Vol. 6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4

Marchak, D., Shvarts-Serebro, I., & Blonder, R. (2021). Teaching chemistry by a creative approach: Adapting a teachers’ course for active remote learning. Journal of chemical education , 98 (9), 2809–2819.‏ https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01341

McQuillan, D., Jarke, J., & Pargman, T. C. (2024). We are at an extreme point where we have to go all in on what we really believe education should be about. Postdigital Science and Education, 6 (1), 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00433-5

Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35 (2), 76–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record: THe Voice of Scholarship in Education, 108 (6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Mishra, P., Warr, M., & Islam, R. (2023). TPACK in the age of ChatGPT and generative AI. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 39 (4), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2023.2247480

Moorhouse, B. L., Yeo, M. A., & Wan, Y. (2023). Generative AI tools and assessment: Guidelines of the world’s top-ranking universities. Computers and Education Open, 5 , 100151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100151

Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18 (10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x

Nazaretsky, T., Ariely, M., Cukurova, M., & Alexandron, G. (2022). Teachers’ trust in AI-powered educational technology and a professional development program to improve it. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53 , 914–931. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13232

Ning, Y., Zhang, C., Xu, B., Zhou, Y., & Wijaya, T. T. (2024). Teachers’ AI-TPACK: Exploring the relationship between knowledge elements. Sustainability, 16 (3), 978. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16030978

Ouertatani, L., Dumon, A., Trabelsi, M. A., & Soudani, M. (2007). Acids and bases: The appropriation of the Arrhenius model by Tunisian grade 10 students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5 (3), 483–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-006-9049-4

Pardos, Z. A., & Bhandari, S. (2023). Learning gain differences between ChatGPT and human tutor generated algebra hints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.06871 .‏

Pargman, T. C., McGrath, C., Viberg, O., & Knight, S. (2023). New vistas on responsible learning analytics: A data feminist perspective. Journal of Learning Analytics, 10 (1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2023.7781

Rahman, Md. M., & Watanobe, Y. (2023). ChatGPT for education and research: Opportunities, threats, and strategies. Applied Sciences, 13 (9), 5783. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13095783

Rap, S., & Blonder, R. (2016). Let’s Face (book) it: Analyzing interactions in social network groups for chemistry learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 25 , 62–76.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9577-1

Reyes, V. C., Jr., Reading, C., Doyle, H., & Gregory, S. (2017). Integrating ICT into teacher education programs from a TPACK perspective: Exploring perceptions of university lecturers. Computers & Education, 115 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.009

Rodriguez, J. M. G., & Towns, M. H. (2019). Alternative use for the refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge: Suggestions for contextualizing chemistry education research. Journal of Chemical Education , 96(9),1797–1803. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00415

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for pre-service teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42 (2), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544

Shin, R. (2023). Humiliated lawyers fined $5,000 for submitting ChatGPT hallucinations in court: ‘I heard about this new site, which I falsely assumed was, like, a super search engine’. Fortune . https://finance.yahoo.com/news/humiliated-lawyers-fined-5-000-164109050.html

Short, C. E., & Short, J. C. (2023). The artificially intelligent entrepreneur: ChatGPT, prompt engineering, and entrepreneurial rhetoric creation. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 19.   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2023.e00388

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411

Strobelt, H., Webson, A., Sanh, V., Hoover, B., Beyer, J., Pfister, H., & Rush, A. M. (2022). Interactive and visual prompt engineering for ad-hoc task adaptation with large language models. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29 (1), 1146–1156. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209479

Tal, M., Herscovitz, O., & Dori, Y. J. (2021). Assessing teachers’ knowledge: Incorporating context-based learning in chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22 (4), 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0rp00359j

Talanquer, V. (2023). Interview with the Chatbot: How Does It Reason? Journal of Chemical Education, 100 (8), 2821–2824. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00472

Tao, Y., Viberg, O., Baker, R. S., & Kizilcec, R. F. (2023). Auditing and mitigating cultural bias in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14096 .‏

Thyssen, C., Huwer, J., Irion, T., & Schaal, S. (2023). From TPACK to DPACK: The “digitality-related pedagogical and content knowledge”-model in STEM-education. Education Sciences, 13 (8), 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080769

Valtonen, T., Sointu, E., Kukkonen, J., Kontkanen, S., Lambert, M. C., & Mäkitalo-Siegl, K. (2017). TPACK updated to measure pre-service teachers’ twenty-first century skills. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33 (3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3518

van den Berg, G., & du Plessis, E. (2023). ChatGPT and generative AI: Possibilities for its contribution to lesson planning, critical thinking and openness in teacher education. Education Sciences, 13 (10), 998. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13100998

van Driel, J., Hume, A., & Berry, A. (2014). Research on science teacher knowledge and its development. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1123–1161). Routledge.

Verloop, N., Driel, J. Van, & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. In International Journal of Educational Research, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00003-4

Viberg, O., Mutimukwe, C., Hrastinski, S., Cerratto-Pargman, T., & Lilliesköld, J. (2024). Exploring teachers’ (future) digital assessment practices in higher education: Instrument and model development. British Journal of Educational Technology . https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13462

Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ TPACK development: A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34 (4), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1498039

Xu, Y., Hu, L., Zhao, J., Qiu, Z., Ye, Y., & Gu, H. (2024). A survey on multilingual large language models: Corpora, alignment, and bias.  arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00929 .‏

Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023). Why Johnny can’t prompt: How non-AI experts try (and fail) to design LLM prompts. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581388

Zhao, Z., Wallace, E., Feng, S., Klein, D., & Singh, S. (2021). Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International conference on machine learning (pp. 12697–12706). PMLR.‏

Download references

Open access funding provided by Weizmann Institute of Science.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

Yael Feldman-Maggor, Ron Blonder & Giora Alexandron

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this feature article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yael Feldman-Maggor .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

Not applicable.

Informed Consent

Consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Feldman-Maggor, Y., Blonder, R. & Alexandron, G. Perspectives of Generative AI in Chemistry Education Within the TPACK Framework. J Sci Educ Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10147-3

Download citation

Accepted : 07 August 2024

Published : 24 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10147-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Digital assistant
• Generative AI
• Teacher knowledge
• Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research