1. Results and Discussion

2. Results section
contains a large amount of scientific data (presented clearly and concisely)
presents the key results/findings of the research.
can be combined into one section or organized as separate sections
Can contain tables and figures

3. Discussion / Conclusion section includes the following:
A short summary of findings
Comparison with prior studies
Limitations of the work
Casual arguments
Speculations
Deductive arguments

4. Academic Phrases, Sentences & Vocabulary
Findings and Discussion
From the short review above, key findings emerge: __
This result highlights that little is known about the __
We describe the results of __, which show __
A further novel finding is that __
This suggests that __
Together, the present findings confirm __
We showed that __
The implications of these findings are discussed in __
Our findings on __ at least hint that __
The results demonstrate two things.  First, __. Second,  __
This is an important finding in the understanding of the __
The results of the experiment found clear support for the __
The present study confirmed the findings about __
This analysis found evidence for __
Another promising finding was that __
Planned comparisons revealed that __
Our results demonstrated that __

5. This section summarises the findings and contributions made.
The result of this analysis is then compared with the  __
It performs well, giving good results.
The applicability of these new results are then tested on __
This gives clearly better results than __
This is important to correctly interpret the results.
The results confirm that this a good choice for __
The results are substantially better than __
From the results, it is clear that __
The results lead to similar conclusion where __
In this section, we will illustrate some experimental results.
Superior results are seen for __
This delivers significantly better results due to __
From these results it is clear that __
Extensive results carried out show that this method improves __
The result now provides evidence to __
It leads to good results, even if the improvement is negligible.
We obtain good results with this simple method.
This yields increasingly good results on data.
However, even better results are achieved when using our algorithm.

6. 2. Comparison with prior studies:
When comparing our results to those of older studies, it must be pointed out that __
The results demonstrated in this chapter match state of the art methods.
We have verified that using __ produces similar results
Here we compare the results of the proposed method with those of the traditional methods.
Overall these findings are in accordance with findings reported by __
These results go beyond previous reports, showing that __
Even though we did not replicate the previously reported __, our results suggest that __
In line with previous studies __
A similar conclusion was reached by __
This result ties well with previous studies wherein __
However, when comparing our results to those of older studies, it must be pointed out __
Contrary to the findings of __ we did not find __
This is consistent with what has been found in previous __
They have demonstrated that __
A similar pattern of results was obtained in __
Others have shown that __ improves __
The findings are directly in line with previous findings
By comparing the results from __, we hope to determine __
These basic findings are consistent with research showing that __
However, in line with the ideas of __, it can be concluded that __
Other results were broadly in line with __

7. 4. Casual arguments: A popular explanation of __ is that __
This is indicative for lack of __
This will not be biased by __
It is by now generally accepted that __
There were also some important differences in __
A popular explanation is that __
As it is not generally agreed that __
It is interesting to note that, __
These are very small and difficult to observe.
It is unlikely that __
It is important to highlight the fact that __
This may alter or improve aspects of __
It is notable that __
In contrast, this makes it possible to __
An important question associated with __ is __
This is particularly important when investigating __
This did not impair the __
This has been used to successfully account for __
This is important because there is __
This implies that __ is associated with __
This introduces a possible confound in __ This was included to verify that __

8. 5. Speculations:
However, we acknowledge that there are considerable discussions among researchers as to __
It is difficult to explain such results within the context of __
It is unclear whether this is a suitable for __
We speculate that this might be due to __
This appears to be a case of __
There are reasons to doubt this explanation of __
From this standpoint, __ can be considered as __
It remains unclear to which degree __ are attributed to __
To date, __remain unknown
However, __ does seem to improve __
Under certain assumptions, this can be construed as __
This does seem to depend on __
Because of this potential limitation, we treat __
It is important to note, that the present evidence relies on __
In addition, several questions remain unanswered.
The results show that __ does not seem to impact the __
At this stage of understanding, we believe__
However, the extent to which it is possible to __ is unknown
Therefore, it remains unclear whether __
This may explain why __
Alternatively, it could simply mean that __

9. 6. Deductive Arguments:
A difference between these __ can only be attributable to __
Nonetheless, we believe that it is well justified to __
This may raise concerns about __ which can be addressed by __
As discussed, this is due to the fact that __
Results demonstrate that this is not necessarily true.
These findings support the notion that __ is not influenced by __
This may be the reason why we did not find __
In order to test whether this is equivalent across __, we __
Therefore, __ can be considered to be equivalent for __

10. Example from Education
Here results and discussion appear togetherThe design of the research
Results and Discussion Modelling and joint negotiation of texts This study set out to investigate the effects of extending the negotiation of text phase of the DSP teaching/learning cycle with English for Further Study students to incorporate student/teacher joint negotiation and construction of a marking instrument. The following discussion will focus on the application, appropriateness and usefulness of the curriculum innovation from both the students’ as well as the teacher/researcher’s perspective.
Intro to this section

11. Classroom text analyses
The first research question was “How do students benefit from analysing model texts?” This involved analysing classroom discourse to determine whether there was a shift from the archetypal classroom discourse of Teacher Initiation, Pupil Response, Teacher Feedback identified by Sinclair and Coulthard (Stubb 1983: 29) to students taking on the role of primary knowers. This research question also involved investigating how students’ knowledge about language and texts developed through ongoing modelling and analyses of texts. A related research question was “Will students adopt and /or develop a metalanguage to talk about language? The main data forming the basis of the following discussion are the transcripts of the recordings of the classroom text analyses.
The subsections of this chapter follow a
pattern:
- link aspect of the study to a research
question;
- presentation of the results supported by data;
- discussion and interpretation of findings;
- summary of subsection
links findings to findings of other studies

12. The first teaching stage of the project focussed on identifying the schematic staging of an exposition genre and how cohesion is achieved in expositions (see Chapter 4 for a description of the curriculum process). The initial analysis of the model text was very teacher directed. The transcript of this segment of the lesson (see Appendix C) shows that most of the input came from the teacher with the pattern of classroom talk being:
- teacher question
- student response
- teacher confirmation
For example when analysing the analytical exposition for schematic structure, one exchange
was as follows:
T Now, we’ve been talking about causes. What happens now in the very short
paragraph?
S1 Effects?
T Mmm. Now the writer starts to talk about effects. So we’ve got a second Thesis.
SS Yeah.
T Which is?
S1 These three.
S2 The whole thing
S3 These three events
T So the second Thesis is the whole sentence. “These three events planted the seeds of
a great change in society, and the effects of this change are being felt at all levels…”
(Appendix C: Analysis of Analytical Exposition)
Incorporation of data to support findings - findings related to relevant literature

13. The above exchanges correspond to the pattern identified by Sinclair and Coulthard as characteristic of teacher-pupil talk with the underlying exchange structure of Teacher Initiation, Pupil Response, and Teacher Feedback. This exchange structure allows the teacher to retain the conversational initiative (Stubbs 1983: 29). In the above exchange the teacher was the primary “knower” of information and her questions prompted and guided the students onto the next stage. (follows more presentation of data and discussion of results) To sum up this discussion of the data in response to the first research question “How do students benefit from analysing model texts?” there are two main points to be made: i) The students’ ability to analyse texts improved. By the third analysis they were able to examine a number of language features on their own, draw conclusions on the status of the text on the mode continuum (more factual, or more persuasive) and give examples to support their points. The systemic functional model of language was a valuable teaching resource to make explicit language features of different genres to the class.
- summary of discussion of findings for this subsection

14. ii) No “new” classroom metalanguage emerged, and at times “language to talk about language” caused problems for a few members of the group (What’s cohesion again?” and “What’s the difference between Thesis and Introduction?” Appendix C: Transcript of Discussion Genre and Text Analysis). Students took a pragmatic approach to explain a concept in some instances, but also adopted more explicit terms that described the purpose of a textual feature. On the whole their classroom language reflected their extended knowledge about texts: students developed from talking about “friendly” sounding texts to “distanced”, “sophisticated,” and “more Abstract” texts. Development of the writing checklists My second research question “Do classroom negotiated writing checklists aid the writing process?” will be discussed in three parts. The first part will evaluate the data as to the sub question “Is the process of negotiating writing checklists with students beneficial?” The data for this discussion will be transcripts of the constructions of checklists, and classroom observations. The second part will discuss the writing checklists in light of the classroom joint negotiations, while the third part will evaluate the students’ responses to questionnaires on the drafting and editing process. (discussion of data)

15. The project focussed on using writing checklists with one TAFE English of Further Study class. The results suggest that teachers and students can benefit from extending the DSP teaching/learning cycle to include writing checklists. However, the checklists need to be written in a way which is accessible to students. That is, the students and teacher must share a classroom language to talk about language, and this should be the language of the writing checklists. This shared classroom language can be developed when working through the stages of the DSP cycle, namely modelling texts, jointly constructing texts, and individual constructions. Teacher development of writing checklists also needs to be seen as an ongoing process incorporating additions and modifications as the students’ understanding of textual features develops. The possible benefits of extending the teaching/learning cycle to include checklists are considerable. Writing teachers and students can use checklists compiled from analysis of model texts to : - revise language features and schematic staging of specific genres - guide and prompt the teacher and student in the joint negotiation phase of the DSP cycle - allow the student to communicate to the teacher his/her area of difficulty when writing - allow the teacher to make explicit written comments about how well the student’s writing approximated the genre in question - assist students to draft and revise their essays These features of the checklists should assist English for Further Study students to develop as writers of factual texts.
implications and applications of this research