how to write discussion in assignment

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

• PLOS Biology
• PLOS Climate
• PLOS Complex Systems
• PLOS Computational Biology
• PLOS Digital Health
• PLOS Genetics
• PLOS Global Public Health
• PLOS Medicine
• PLOS Mental Health
• PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
• PLOS Pathogens
• PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
• PLOS Collections
• How to Write Discussions and Conclusions

The discussion section contains the results and outcomes of a study. An effective discussion informs readers what can be learned from your experiment and provides context for the results.

What makes an effective discussion?

When you’re ready to write your discussion, you’ve already introduced the purpose of your study and provided an in-depth description of the methodology. The discussion informs readers about the larger implications of your study based on the results. Highlighting these implications while not overstating the findings can be challenging, especially when you’re submitting to a journal that selects articles based on novelty or potential impact. Regardless of what journal you are submitting to, the discussion section always serves the same purpose: concluding what your study results actually mean.

A successful discussion section puts your findings in context. It should include:

• the results of your research,
• a discussion of related research, and
• a comparison between your results and initial hypothesis.

Tip: Not all journals share the same naming conventions.

You can apply the advice in this article to the conclusion, results or discussion sections of your manuscript.

Our Early Career Researcher community tells us that the conclusion is often considered the most difficult aspect of a manuscript to write. To help, this guide provides questions to ask yourself, a basic structure to model your discussion off of and examples from published manuscripts. 

Questions to ask yourself:

• Was my hypothesis correct?
• If my hypothesis is partially correct or entirely different, what can be learned from the results? 
• How do the conclusions reshape or add onto the existing knowledge in the field? What does previous research say about the topic? 
• Why are the results important or relevant to your audience? Do they add further evidence to a scientific consensus or disprove prior studies? 
• How can future research build on these observations? What are the key experiments that must be done? 
• What is the “take-home” message you want your reader to leave with?

How to structure a discussion

Trying to fit a complete discussion into a single paragraph can add unnecessary stress to the writing process. If possible, you’ll want to give yourself two or three paragraphs to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of your study as a whole. Here’s one way to structure an effective discussion:

Writing Tips

While the above sections can help you brainstorm and structure your discussion, there are many common mistakes that writers revert to when having difficulties with their paper. Writing a discussion can be a delicate balance between summarizing your results, providing proper context for your research and avoiding introducing new information. Remember that your paper should be both confident and honest about the results! 

• Read the journal’s guidelines on the discussion and conclusion sections. If possible, learn about the guidelines before writing the discussion to ensure you’re writing to meet their expectations. 
• Begin with a clear statement of the principal findings. This will reinforce the main take-away for the reader and set up the rest of the discussion. 
• Explain why the outcomes of your study are important to the reader. Discuss the implications of your findings realistically based on previous literature, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the research. 
• State whether the results prove or disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis was disproved, what might be the reasons? 
• Introduce new or expanded ways to think about the research question. Indicate what next steps can be taken to further pursue any unresolved questions. 
• If dealing with a contemporary or ongoing problem, such as climate change, discuss possible consequences if the problem is avoided. 
• Be concise. Adding unnecessary detail can distract from the main findings. 

Don’t

• Rewrite your abstract. Statements with “we investigated” or “we studied” generally do not belong in the discussion. 
• Include new arguments or evidence not previously discussed. Necessary information and evidence should be introduced in the main body of the paper. 
• Apologize. Even if your research contains significant limitations, don’t undermine your authority by including statements that doubt your methodology or execution. 
• Shy away from speaking on limitations or negative results. Including limitations and negative results will give readers a complete understanding of the presented research. Potential limitations include sources of potential bias, threats to internal or external validity, barriers to implementing an intervention and other issues inherent to the study design. 
• Overstate the importance of your findings. Making grand statements about how a study will fully resolve large questions can lead readers to doubt the success of the research. 

Snippets of Effective Discussions:

Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach

Identifying reliable indicators of fitness in polar bears

• How to Write a Great Title
• How to Write an Abstract
• How to Write Your Methods
• How to Report Statistics
• How to Edit Your Work

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

• 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: May 21, 2024 11:14 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write a Discussion Essay

Last Updated: June 27, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 14 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 442,906 times.

Discussion Essay Outline and Example

Planning Your Essay

• For instance, maybe the question is, "Immigration has been a heated topic on the national level for many years. With issues like the DREAM Act and President Trump's stances on policy, it's likely to remain a central issue. Using authoritative resources to back up your argument, take a stance on immigration policy, establishing whether you think it should be more or less strict and why."
• You can establish that the main topic is immigration policy from the sentence, "Take a stance on immigration policy."
• If you're having trouble understanding the question, don't be afraid to talk to the professor. They can help you better understand what they're asking for.

• If your essay will be based off a discussion had in class, ask your instructor if you can use class notes as a primary source.
• Look for respected news sources, as well as websites with ".edu" and ".gov" extensions.
• You may need to look up information on the DREAM Act or President Trump's policies to help you understand the question, for example. For this part, you don't need to take extensive notes, as you're just trying to get a feel for the subject.

• If you were given a text to base your essay on, make sure that text has enough evidence to support your chosen position.

• Use Roman numerals on your page to mark your main ideas. Write a main point by each Roman numeral. You should only cover 3 to 4 main points in a relatively short essay, such as one that's 3 to 5 pages.

• Your main sources should be books or ebooks, journal articles from academic journals, and credible websites. You can also use high quality news articles if they're applicable to your topic.

• For a book, you should include the author's name, the editor's name (if applicable), the title of the book, the publication year, the publication city, the edition, and the title of the book chapter in an anthology by multiple authors.
• For a journal, include the author's name, the journal title, the article title, the digital object identifier (DOI), the ISSN, the publication date, the volume (if applicable), the issue (if applicable), and the page numbers for the journal article.
• If you're searching in a database, you can often ask the database to save this information for you, but you should include identifiers on your notes.

• For example, if one of your main points is "Immigration increases diversity," some of your points underneath might be "Brings in new cuisines," and "Brings in new art."
• Find examples from your research, and add notes to each point to fill them in.

Writing the Introduction

• For an example or anecdote, start by telling a short story about something relevant to your topic. For instance, you might write the following for an essay on immigration, "When I was 4-years-old, my parents told me we were going on a long trip. After a bus ride, we spent nights walking, my dad carrying me most of the way. One day, we crossed a river. That day marked our first day in our new country."

• For example, you might write, "Immigration is a highly-debated issue. It is controversial because some people fear how it affects the resources of the country the people are immigrating to, while others believe the improved quality of life for immigrants is what’s most important."

• For instance, your thesis statement might be, "Immigration is good for the country because it increases diversity, infuses the country with new talent, and broadens the population's perspective, and it should be encouraged with a few basic safeguards in place."

Composing the Body of Your Essay

• For instance, if you're writing a short research paper, one paragraph might be your main point "Immigration increases diversity," where you cover all your bullet points in that paragraph.
• If you're digging deeper, you might create a section about diversity, and then use a paragraph to cover "brings in new cuisines," another to cover "brings in new art," and so on.

• Try not to set up a "straw man" argument, where you don't give the other side a fair chance. You should be able to support your position without purposefully creating a weak position on the other side.

• For instance, maybe you want to transition between a section about increasing diversity to one about bringing in new talent. You might write a sentence like, "Increasing diversity in our country doesn't just bring in new cuisines and art, it also brings in hard workers that have fresh perspectives on old problems in the workforce."

• You can paraphrase other ideas or use direct quotes, but only use a direct quote if the author said something in a unique way. Otherwise, put it in your own words.
• You may want to begin body paragraphs with a quote from a relevant source. Then, explain or provide commentary on the quote and show how it supports your position.
• You can also use statistics to back up your research. For instance, if one of your arguments is that immigration doesn't increase crime, use statistics to back that up.

Concluding Your Essay

• For instance, you might write, "A truly great country is one that celebrates differences and welcomes new ideas and perspectives. While immigration has some negative effects on a country, overall, allowing people from other countries to come in helps to spark new ideas and make the country a better and more interesting place to live. Rather than being a drain on society, immigrants are motivated to work hard and our citizens can only benefit from listening to their perspectives."

• Once you have the flow down, read it again to check for grammatical mistakes and typos. It can help to read it aloud, as it slows you down and forces you to read every word.

Expert Q&A

• Remember you can't research forever. Often, the research stage absorbs a student so fully that the upcoming submission date seems unimportant. Make sure to leave yourself at least a few days to write your essay. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 20 May 2020.
• ↑ https://student.unsw.edu.au/answering-assignment-questions
• ↑ https://student.unsw.edu.au/essay-and-assignment-planning
• ↑ https://opentextbc.ca/writingforsuccess/chapter/chapter-11-developing-a-convincing-argument/
• ↑ https://student.unsw.edu.au/organising-your-ideas
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/introductions/
• ↑ https://www.umgc.edu/current-students/learning-resources/writing-center/writing-resources/parts-of-an-essay/essay-introductions
• ↑ https://wts.indiana.edu/writing-guides/how-to-write-a-thesis-statement.html
• ↑ https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/writing-your-essay
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/organizing_your_argument.html
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/research_and_evidence.html
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/conclusions/
• ↑ https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/conclusion
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

To write a discussion essay, start by taking a side on the issue you're writing about, like "Immigration is good for the country." Then, outline the main points that made you decide to take that position and do research to find evidence that backs them up. Look for credible sources that can help you make your argument, and don't forget to cite them. Then, when you're writing your essay, devote 1 paragraph to each main point and include your evidence. For help writing the introduction and conclusion to your essay, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Ellie Foster

Sep 28, 2021

Did this article help you?

Apr 27, 2016

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Personalised content for

You're viewing this site as a domestic an international student

You're an international student if you are:

• intending to study on a student visa
• not a citizen of Australia or New Zealand
• not an Australian permanent resident
• not a holder of an Australian humanitarian visa.

You're a domestic student if you are:

• a citizen of Australia or New Zealand
• an Australian permanent resident
• a holder of an Australian humanitarian visa.
• Alumni & Giving
• Current students

Search Charles Darwin University

Study Skills

Writing a discussion section

In the discussion section, you will draw connections between your findings, existing theory and other research. You will have an opportunity to tell the story arising from your findings. 

This page will help you to: 

understand the purpose of the discussion section 

follow the steps required to plan your discussion section 

structure your discussion  

enhance the depth of your discussion 

use appropriate language to discuss your findings.  

Introduction to the discussion section

When you have reached this stage, you might be thinking “All I have to do now is to sum up what I have done, and then make a few remarks about what I did” (as cited in Swales & Feak, 2012, p.263). However, writing a discussion section is not that simple. Read on to learn more.

  Before you continue, reflect on your earlier writing experiences and the feedback you have received. How would you rate your ability in the following skills? Rate your ability from ‘good’ to ‘needs development’. 

Reflect on your answers. Congratulations if you feel confident about your skills. You may find it helpful to review the materials on this page to confirm your knowledge and possibly learn more. Don't worry if you don't feel confident. Work through these materials to build your skills. 

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

In this section, you will relate the specific findings of your research to the wider scientific field. This is the opposite of the introduction section, which starts with the broader context and narrows to focus on your specific research topic.  

The discussion will: 

review the findings  

put the findings into the context of the overall research  

tell readers why the research results are important and where they fit in with the current literature 

acknowledge the limitations of the study 

make recommendations for future research.

Let's review your understanding of the discussion section by identifying what makes a strong discussion.

Planning for a discussion section

Planning for a discussion section starts with analysing your data. For some kinds of research, the analysis cannot be done until your data has been collected. For others, analysing data can happen early as the data already exists in literary texts, archival documents or similar.  

Before starting to write the discussion section, it is important to:  

analyse your data (usually reported in the Results or Findings section) 

select the key issues that are the substance of your research  

relate the findings to the literature and 

plan for the process of going from your specific findings to the broader scientific field.  

Your analysis of the results will inform the Findings or Results section of your thesis or publication. It is the stage where you organise and visualise your data, and identify trends, patterns and causal relationships in the themes.

As the section discusses the key findings without restating the results, it is important to identify the key issues. For example, you should focus on four or five issues that agree or do not agree with your hypothesis or with previously published work. It is also important to include and discuss any unexpected results.

You refer to previous research in your discussion section for explaining your results, confirming how your results support the theories and previous studies, comparing your results with similar studies, or showing how your results contradict similar studies. 

Therefore, papers that you are likely to refer to in your discussion are those that led to: 

your hypothesis  

your experimental design 

your results.

In writing the discussion section, you will start with your research and then broaden your focus to the field or scientific community. This means you will go from narrowest (your specific findings) to broadest (the wider scientific community). You do this by following the six moves: 

As you can see, your discussion may follow six moves (stages) which broadens the scope of your discussion section. Watch this video to learn how to apply these moves.

Structuring your discussion

This section reviews how a discussion section can be organised.

A discussion section usually includes five parts or steps, which are illustrated in the image below. 

In some disciplines, the researcher's argument determines the structure of the presentation and discussion of findings. In other disciplines, the structure follows established conventions. Therefore, it is important for you to investigate the conventions of your own discipline, by looking at theses in your discipline and articles published in your target journals. The discussion section may be: 

in a combined section called Results and Discussion 

in a combined section called Discussion and Conclusion 

in a separate section. 

Your discussion section may be an independent chapter or it might be combined with the Findings chapter. Common chapter headings include:  

Discussion chapter 

Findings and Discussion chapter  

Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion chapter

Discussion and Conclusion chapter 

It is important to have a good understanding of the expected content of each chapter.  Below is an example of a chapter in which discussion, recommendations and conclusion are combined.

Click on the hotspots to learn more.

This section focuses on useful language for writing your discussion.

Boosters and hedges should be used to demonstrate your confidence in your interpretation of the results. They help you to distinguish between clear and strong results and those that you feel less confident about or that may be open to different interpretations.

 Read both sentences. Which one shows more confidence in the results? 

The Dutch supervisors reported using different types of questions more frequently and deliberately than the Chinese supervisors. This difference may have its roots in the underlying educational philosophies. (Adapted from Hu, Rijst, Veen, & Verloop, 2016)  

The findings clearly demonstrate that psychological capital had considerable influence on the 10 employability skills included in the study, and especially on those related to teamwork, self-knowledge and self-management (Adapted from Harper, Bregta & Rundle, 2021) 

The writers of sentence two are more confident in the interpretation of their results.  

Test your knowledge of hedges and boosters by doing the task below. 

It is important to make it clear in your discussion: 

which research has been done by you 

which research has been done by other people 

how they complement each other.

Image 2: Note that present perfect is also used to refer to other studies when you want to emphasise that an area of research is still current and ongoing. Take a look at the example below which uses present perfect to refer to other studies 

Like other studies (e.g., Larcombe et al., 2021; Naylor, 2020) that have shown a strong connection between course experience and wellbeing, our study shows that a significant portion of international students believe that aspects of their immediate environment could be improved to better support their wellbeing.  

More information on tenses in the Discussion section is presented in Language Tip 4 below.  

Below are some useful discussion phrases that were adapted from Paltridge & Starfield (2020) and the APA Discussion phrases guide (7th edition).

You can download this APA discussion phrase guide here and visit the Academic Phrasebank for further phrases and examples. 

Let's look at these extracts and identify the functions of the paragraphs.  

Past, present and present perfect tenses are commonly used in the discussion section.  

• Past tense is used to summarise the key findings and to refer to the work of previous researchers  
• Present perfect is used to refer to the work of previous researchers (usually an area of research that is current and on-going rather than one single study) 
• Present tense is used to interpret the results or describe the significance of the findings  
• Future  is used to make recommendations for further research or providing future direction 

Below is an example of some paragraphs in a discussion section in which different tenses are used.

Test your knowledge of using the right tenses in the discussion section by doing the task below. 

Use this template to plan your discussion.  

The template is an example of a planning tool that will help you develop an overview of the key content that you are going to include in your section. You can download the draft and save it as a Word document once you have finished. 

You may have more or less than 3 key findings that you would like to discuss in your section.  

If you would like more support, visit the Language and Learning Advisors page. 

Butler, K. (2020, 7 April). Breakdown of an ideal discussion of scientific research paper. Scientific Communications . https://butlerscicomm.com/breakdown-of-ideal-discussion-section-research-paper  

Calvo, J. C. A & García, G. M. (2021). The influence of psychological capital on graduates’ perception of employability: the mediating role of employability skills. Higher Education Research & Development , 40(2), 293-308, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1738350   

Cenamor, J. (2022) To teach or not to teach? Junior academics and the teaching-research relationship. Higher Education Research & Development , 41(5), 1417-1435. DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1933395  

Harper, R.,  Bretag, T & Rundle, K. (2021) Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(2), 263-278, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899   

Hu, Y., Rijst, R. M., Veen, K & N Verloop, N. (2016) The purposes and processes of master's thesis supervision: a comparison of Chinese and Dutch supervisors. Higher Education Research & Development , 35(5), 910-924, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1139550  

Humphrey, P. (2015). English language proficiency in higher education: student conceptualisations and outcomes . [Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University]  

Marangell, S., & Baik, C. (2022). International students’ suggestions for what universities can do to better support their mental wellbeing. Journal of International Students, 12(4), 933-954.  

Merga, M., & Mason, S. (2021) Early career researchers’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of sharing research with academic and non-academic end-users, Higher Education Research & Development , 40(7), 1482-1496, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1815662  

Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2019). Thesis and Dissertation Writing in a Second Language: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors (2nd ed.). Routledge.  

Rendle-Short, J. (2009). The Address Term Mate in Australian English: Is it Still a Masculine Term?. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 245-268, DOI: 10.1080/07268600902823110  

Did you know CDU Language and Learning Advisors offer a range of study support options?

https://www.cdu.edu.au/library/language-and-learning-support

Cookie compliance notice

We use cookies to improve our service. By continuing you agree to our privacy statement . EU/EA members can update your cookie settings here .

How to Write a Discussion Post

How to Write a Discussion Post: Learn How Now!

To write a discussion post effectively:

• Understand the Prompt: Clearly grasp the topic or question.
• Research: Gather accurate information from credible sources.
• Organize Thoughts: Outline your main points.
• Write Clearly: Be concise and direct.
• Use Evidence: Support arguments with examples or data.
• Reflect and Add Insights: Offer unique perspectives.
• Encourage Engagement: End with a question.
• Proofread: Check for errors.
• Follow Netiquette: Be respectful and polite.
• Cite Sources: Properly acknowledge references.

How to Start a Discussion Post: Shine in the Discussion Forum

Dive into our article, a comprehensive guide on crafting impactful discussion threads. Learn the art of initiating engaging conversations by discovering "how to begin a discussion post." We emphasize the crucial steps: meticulous reading, thoughtful outlining, and expressing genuine thoughts and recommendations. Uncover the power of posing questions to elicit meaningful responses, fostering interactive dialogue in your discussion forum.

We advocate for proactive engagement—state your perspectives, articulate reasons behind your thoughts, and express curiosity about your classmates' opinions, too. Our article underscores the importance of continuous participation, urging you not merely to write but also to read and react to others' posts. 

By following these tips, you'll transform your discussion posts into dynamic, thought-provoking contributions, fostering a vibrant online discourse. Elevate your communication skills and make a lasting impact in virtual discussions. Embrace the journey of becoming a skilled discussion initiator!

The Journey Starts By Reading the Prompt Thoroughly

If you’re fretting over how to write my discussion board post , fret not. Embark on this task successfully by remembering the cardinal rule: read your instructor’s prompt thoroughly. This isn't just a step, but it's the launchpad for crafting your stellar discussion post. Picture your assignment prompt as your roadmap to success, guiding you through the intricacies of your assignment.

Always start by understanding the prompt and absorbing every detail. Think of yourself as a detective decoding a complex case. Pay attention to the words, along with the hidden subtleties of your assignment to get to its essence. Think about: 

• Its relation to your course
• Required readings
• Pay attention to action words

Use all these details to shape your discussion post response. Beyond the prompt, ascertain if there are additional requirements like word count and citation formats. Check out the grading rubric. It’s like a cheat sheet in understanding your assignment. When you fully comprehend the nuances of the assignment, you equip yourself to write a discussion post that not only meets but exceeds expectations. So, always start your discussion post writing journey with a thorough analysis of the prompt!

Take Time to Read Related Readings

Wondering how to write a discussion board post? Remember, the journey to an impactful post begins not with writing, but with reading. Dive into required or supplemental readings for the week because your discussions draw directly from your course material. 

Even if not explicitly mentioned, infuse your post with concepts and ideas gleaned from your weekly readings. Think of it as weaving a narrative that seamlessly integrates your newfound knowledge. 

By aligning your thoughts with course content, you not only meet expectations of your instructors, but you elevate your discussion. That’s because you are able to demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject! 

So, stop procrastinating and immerse yourself in the material. Then, let your insights shine in your discussion board post. That’s the winning recipe!

Create an Outline of Important Points

Want to know how to write a good discussion board post? Start the writing process by creating an outline of crucial points – a roadmap to ensure nothing is overlooked. Think of it as your strategic guide, steering you through the intricacies of your task at hand.

Creating an outline serves a dual purpose: it organizes your thoughts and safeguards against missing essential elements. This proactive approach not only enhances the clarity of your post but also streamlines your future writing process. Jot down:

• Key concepts
• Supporting arguments
• Important keywords
• Any pertinent references.

Consider this outline a visual checklist that guarantees a comprehensive response. By following this structured approach, you not only present a well-organized discussion post but also demonstrate your commitment to thoughtful engagement.

So, don't skip the crucial step of creating an outline. It's your fail-safe mechanism to craft a discussion post that impresses everyone who reads it. Dive in, outline your key points, and let your ideas shine!

Struggling with your Discussion Post?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease.

The Writing Process: How to Craft a Stellar Discussion Post

After adequate preparation, you are now ready to craft a compelling discussion post that wows your instructors and classmates. Imagine it as a three-part symphony where your insights take the spotlight. It’s as complex as how you feel when you write my research paper , but once you actually start typing, you’ll be amazed that the words just flow. 

Part 1: Unleash your thoughts! Respond to the open-ended query with your perspective. What do you think? This sets the tone for your contribution, making it unique and engaging.

Part 2: Dive deeper into the why. Explore your experiences, beliefs, or knowledge that shape your viewpoint. Spice it up by incorporating references, quotes, or links that reinforce your stance. This not only strengthens your argument but also showcases your understanding.

Part 3: Ignite curiosity! Express what you wish you knew or directly seek the opinions of your classmates. Pose a question that sparks discussion. It's the interactive element that transforms your post into a dynamic exchange.

Remember, if the prompt has two items or questions, ensure you also have two well-developed paragraphs in your post. Craft a symphony of ideas, and let your discussion post resonate and leave a lasting impression! If you’re feeling stumped, you can also contact our writing experts for assistance. 

Remember These Writing Tips as You Write

As you write your draft, remember the secrets of impactful discussion posts. Our expert tips on how to write discussion posts will help. When tackling assignments with multiple questions, go beyond the conventional approach or question and answer. Instead of answering sequentially, employ a powerful topic sentence to weave a central argument, claim, or purpose, offering a cohesive narrative.

Harness the persuasive power by supporting your stance with evidence drawn from course readings or permissible outside sources. Ensure each piece of evidence you provide maintains focus, relevance, clarity, and scholarly tone. By following these elements, you will elevate the quality of your post.

Always navigate the online realm with finesse. Make it a point to utilize the sentence case to convey your message without the distraction of ALL CAPS. Additionally, don't overlook the critical step of citing information and ideas from external sources, presenting a well-rounded discussion post that not only impresses but adheres to scholarly standards.

Review and Revise Your Discussion Post Draft

The final lap of perfecting your discussion post happens with the review and revision stage. The secret of knowing how to write a discussion post that’s riveting is meticulousness. Crafting a compelling thread is an art. 

Your discussion post should be substantial yet concise. The goal is to deliver meaningful information for your classmates and your teachers. Thus, it’s important to always re-read your response draft. This is a crucial habit if you want to succeed. Take it a step further by pasting your thread into a Word document to catch any sneaky errors in spelling and grammar.

Now, scrutinize your post with a precise eagle eye. Ensure each question or action word in the instructions has a fully-developed paragraph. Infuse concepts and ideas from course readings wherever possible for depth. Correctly cite sources in APA, MLA, or Chicago style. 

Check if your post meets the word count requirements and undergoes a meticulous review for impeccable grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Elevate your discussion post from good to outstanding with this thorough review and revision process!

Submit the Final Discussion Post

Congratulations, you’ve reached the most anticipated part! Hovering your mouse over the submit button feels cathartic. Give yourself a well-deserved pat on the back and proudly proclaim, "I was finally able to do my homework !" 

Now, for the final steps: Copy and paste your final draft into your class’ online discussion thread. Give it a quick look, ensuring no formatting problems happened when you uploaded your work. This last-minute check guarantees your post looks as stellar as it reads. 

When your discussion post contribution is finally submitted, exercise patience as you await responses from your classmates. Don’t forget to reply to their comments so you can initiate a thorough analysis of the prompt. 

Your hard work and dedication shine in this final submission – a testament to your commitment to crafting a standout discussion post. 

How to End a Discussion Post with a Bang

Elevate your discussion post finale with a resounding bang! Your discussion post assignment doesn't conclude when you hit the submit button. In fact, your teacher expects you to deepen your learning experience by engaging with your peers. 

Respond to comments in your post, while giving replies to your classmates’ postings as well. Pose open-ended questions that spark curiosity and encourage fresh perspectives. Share additional insights gleaned from readings and research. You can also use others to enrich the discourse like notes from your class discussion. 

Conclude your discussion threat by stating the relevance of your post—highlight what you've learned from your peers and why their information is valuable. This dynamic approach not only finishes your post on a high note but encourages ongoing conversation. Remember, the real magic happens beyond posting. 

That’s why it's important to actively respond to your peers' contributions, creating a collaborative learning environment that goes beyond the ordinary. Make your discussion posts memorable by ending with impact and igniting a continuum of insightful conversations! If you need help, don’t hesitate to reach out to our expert writing team for guidance. 

In other words, ending online discussion posts and marking them as productive discussions requires critical thinking skills and proficiency in communication.

FAQ How to write a good discussion post?

To write a good discussion post, understand the topic clearly, express your points concisely and support them with evidence. Engage others by asking questions and being open to different viewpoints. Always proofread for clarity and correctness. Follow specific guidelines and general online etiquette, respond actively to feedback, and add personal insights to engage your post. If suitable, use visuals to enhance understanding.

What is the basic structure of a discussion post?

A discussion post typically starts with an introduction where you briefly state the topic or question you are addressing. This is followed by the main body, where you present your thoughts, arguments, or responses to the question or topic. Use evidence or examples to support your points. Finally, conclude your post by summarizing your main points and possibly posing questions to encourage further discussion.

How can I make my discussion post engaging?

To make your discussion post engaging, start with a captivating question or an interesting fact. Use clear and concise language, and organize your thoughts logically. Include personal experiences or anecdotes if relevant. Ask questions and invite responses to encourage participation from other participants. Additionally, if you need extra help or want to improve your writing skills, our write an essay for me service at Studyfy can offer professional support and feedback, ensuring that your posts are not only attention-grabbing but also of high quality.

Is it important to reference sources in a discussion post?

Yes, referencing sources in a discussion post is important, especially in academic or professional contexts. Citing sources adds credibility to your arguments and allows others to verify your claims or read more on the topic. Use the appropriate citation style as required by the forum or as is standard in your field.

Featured Posts

How to write a term paper.

How To Make An Essay Longer

How to Write a Dissertation

How to Write an Essay

How to Write a Research Paper

How to Write a Lab Report

• 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)

Understanding Assignments

What this handout is about.

The first step in any successful college writing venture is reading the assignment. While this sounds like a simple task, it can be a tough one. This handout will help you unravel your assignment and begin to craft an effective response. Much of the following advice will involve translating typical assignment terms and practices into meaningful clues to the type of writing your instructor expects. See our short video for more tips.

Basic beginnings

Regardless of the assignment, department, or instructor, adopting these two habits will serve you well :

• Read the assignment carefully as soon as you receive it. Do not put this task off—reading the assignment at the beginning will save you time, stress, and problems later. An assignment can look pretty straightforward at first, particularly if the instructor has provided lots of information. That does not mean it will not take time and effort to complete; you may even have to learn a new skill to complete the assignment.
• Ask the instructor about anything you do not understand. Do not hesitate to approach your instructor. Instructors would prefer to set you straight before you hand the paper in. That’s also when you will find their feedback most useful.

Assignment formats

Many assignments follow a basic format. Assignments often begin with an overview of the topic, include a central verb or verbs that describe the task, and offer some additional suggestions, questions, or prompts to get you started.

An Overview of Some Kind

The instructor might set the stage with some general discussion of the subject of the assignment, introduce the topic, or remind you of something pertinent that you have discussed in class. For example:

“Throughout history, gerbils have played a key role in politics,” or “In the last few weeks of class, we have focused on the evening wear of the housefly …”

The Task of the Assignment

Pay attention; this part tells you what to do when you write the paper. Look for the key verb or verbs in the sentence. Words like analyze, summarize, or compare direct you to think about your topic in a certain way. Also pay attention to words such as how, what, when, where, and why; these words guide your attention toward specific information. (See the section in this handout titled “Key Terms” for more information.)

“Analyze the effect that gerbils had on the Russian Revolution”, or “Suggest an interpretation of housefly undergarments that differs from Darwin’s.”

Additional Material to Think about

Here you will find some questions to use as springboards as you begin to think about the topic. Instructors usually include these questions as suggestions rather than requirements. Do not feel compelled to answer every question unless the instructor asks you to do so. Pay attention to the order of the questions. Sometimes they suggest the thinking process your instructor imagines you will need to follow to begin thinking about the topic.

“You may wish to consider the differing views held by Communist gerbils vs. Monarchist gerbils, or Can there be such a thing as ‘the housefly garment industry’ or is it just a home-based craft?”

These are the instructor’s comments about writing expectations:

“Be concise”, “Write effectively”, or “Argue furiously.”

Technical Details

These instructions usually indicate format rules or guidelines.

“Your paper must be typed in Palatino font on gray paper and must not exceed 600 pages. It is due on the anniversary of Mao Tse-tung’s death.”

The assignment’s parts may not appear in exactly this order, and each part may be very long or really short. Nonetheless, being aware of this standard pattern can help you understand what your instructor wants you to do.

Interpreting the assignment

Ask yourself a few basic questions as you read and jot down the answers on the assignment sheet:

Why did your instructor ask you to do this particular task?

Who is your audience.

• What kind of evidence do you need to support your ideas?

What kind of writing style is acceptable?

• What are the absolute rules of the paper?

Try to look at the question from the point of view of the instructor. Recognize that your instructor has a reason for giving you this assignment and for giving it to you at a particular point in the semester. In every assignment, the instructor has a challenge for you. This challenge could be anything from demonstrating an ability to think clearly to demonstrating an ability to use the library. See the assignment not as a vague suggestion of what to do but as an opportunity to show that you can handle the course material as directed. Paper assignments give you more than a topic to discuss—they ask you to do something with the topic. Keep reminding yourself of that. Be careful to avoid the other extreme as well: do not read more into the assignment than what is there.

Of course, your instructor has given you an assignment so that they will be able to assess your understanding of the course material and give you an appropriate grade. But there is more to it than that. Your instructor has tried to design a learning experience of some kind. Your instructor wants you to think about something in a particular way for a particular reason. If you read the course description at the beginning of your syllabus, review the assigned readings, and consider the assignment itself, you may begin to see the plan, purpose, or approach to the subject matter that your instructor has created for you. If you still aren’t sure of the assignment’s goals, try asking the instructor. For help with this, see our handout on getting feedback .

Given your instructor’s efforts, it helps to answer the question: What is my purpose in completing this assignment? Is it to gather research from a variety of outside sources and present a coherent picture? Is it to take material I have been learning in class and apply it to a new situation? Is it to prove a point one way or another? Key words from the assignment can help you figure this out. Look for key terms in the form of active verbs that tell you what to do.

Key Terms: Finding Those Active Verbs

Here are some common key words and definitions to help you think about assignment terms:

Information words Ask you to demonstrate what you know about the subject, such as who, what, when, where, how, and why.

• define —give the subject’s meaning (according to someone or something). Sometimes you have to give more than one view on the subject’s meaning
• describe —provide details about the subject by answering question words (such as who, what, when, where, how, and why); you might also give details related to the five senses (what you see, hear, feel, taste, and smell)
• explain —give reasons why or examples of how something happened
• illustrate —give descriptive examples of the subject and show how each is connected with the subject
• summarize —briefly list the important ideas you learned about the subject
• trace —outline how something has changed or developed from an earlier time to its current form
• research —gather material from outside sources about the subject, often with the implication or requirement that you will analyze what you have found

Relation words Ask you to demonstrate how things are connected.

• compare —show how two or more things are similar (and, sometimes, different)
• contrast —show how two or more things are dissimilar
• apply—use details that you’ve been given to demonstrate how an idea, theory, or concept works in a particular situation
• cause —show how one event or series of events made something else happen
• relate —show or describe the connections between things

Interpretation words Ask you to defend ideas of your own about the subject. Do not see these words as requesting opinion alone (unless the assignment specifically says so), but as requiring opinion that is supported by concrete evidence. Remember examples, principles, definitions, or concepts from class or research and use them in your interpretation.

• assess —summarize your opinion of the subject and measure it against something
• prove, justify —give reasons or examples to demonstrate how or why something is the truth
• evaluate, respond —state your opinion of the subject as good, bad, or some combination of the two, with examples and reasons
• support —give reasons or evidence for something you believe (be sure to state clearly what it is that you believe)
• synthesize —put two or more things together that have not been put together in class or in your readings before; do not just summarize one and then the other and say that they are similar or different—you must provide a reason for putting them together that runs all the way through the paper
• analyze —determine how individual parts create or relate to the whole, figure out how something works, what it might mean, or why it is important
• argue —take a side and defend it with evidence against the other side

More Clues to Your Purpose As you read the assignment, think about what the teacher does in class:

• What kinds of textbooks or coursepack did your instructor choose for the course—ones that provide background information, explain theories or perspectives, or argue a point of view?
• In lecture, does your instructor ask your opinion, try to prove their point of view, or use keywords that show up again in the assignment?
• What kinds of assignments are typical in this discipline? Social science classes often expect more research. Humanities classes thrive on interpretation and analysis.
• How do the assignments, readings, and lectures work together in the course? Instructors spend time designing courses, sometimes even arguing with their peers about the most effective course materials. Figuring out the overall design to the course will help you understand what each assignment is meant to achieve.

Now, what about your reader? Most undergraduates think of their audience as the instructor. True, your instructor is a good person to keep in mind as you write. But for the purposes of a good paper, think of your audience as someone like your roommate: smart enough to understand a clear, logical argument, but not someone who already knows exactly what is going on in your particular paper. Remember, even if the instructor knows everything there is to know about your paper topic, they still have to read your paper and assess your understanding. In other words, teach the material to your reader.

Aiming a paper at your audience happens in two ways: you make decisions about the tone and the level of information you want to convey.

• Tone means the “voice” of your paper. Should you be chatty, formal, or objective? Usually you will find some happy medium—you do not want to alienate your reader by sounding condescending or superior, but you do not want to, um, like, totally wig on the man, you know? Eschew ostentatious erudition: some students think the way to sound academic is to use big words. Be careful—you can sound ridiculous, especially if you use the wrong big words.
• The level of information you use depends on who you think your audience is. If you imagine your audience as your instructor and they already know everything you have to say, you may find yourself leaving out key information that can cause your argument to be unconvincing and illogical. But you do not have to explain every single word or issue. If you are telling your roommate what happened on your favorite science fiction TV show last night, you do not say, “First a dark-haired white man of average height, wearing a suit and carrying a flashlight, walked into the room. Then a purple alien with fifteen arms and at least three eyes turned around. Then the man smiled slightly. In the background, you could hear a clock ticking. The room was fairly dark and had at least two windows that I saw.” You also do not say, “This guy found some aliens. The end.” Find some balance of useful details that support your main point.

You’ll find a much more detailed discussion of these concepts in our handout on audience .

The Grim Truth

With a few exceptions (including some lab and ethnography reports), you are probably being asked to make an argument. You must convince your audience. It is easy to forget this aim when you are researching and writing; as you become involved in your subject matter, you may become enmeshed in the details and focus on learning or simply telling the information you have found. You need to do more than just repeat what you have read. Your writing should have a point, and you should be able to say it in a sentence. Sometimes instructors call this sentence a “thesis” or a “claim.”

So, if your instructor tells you to write about some aspect of oral hygiene, you do not want to just list: “First, you brush your teeth with a soft brush and some peanut butter. Then, you floss with unwaxed, bologna-flavored string. Finally, gargle with bourbon.” Instead, you could say, “Of all the oral cleaning methods, sandblasting removes the most plaque. Therefore it should be recommended by the American Dental Association.” Or, “From an aesthetic perspective, moldy teeth can be quite charming. However, their joys are short-lived.”

Convincing the reader of your argument is the goal of academic writing. It doesn’t have to say “argument” anywhere in the assignment for you to need one. Look at the assignment and think about what kind of argument you could make about it instead of just seeing it as a checklist of information you have to present. For help with understanding the role of argument in academic writing, see our handout on argument .

What kind of evidence do you need?

There are many kinds of evidence, and what type of evidence will work for your assignment can depend on several factors–the discipline, the parameters of the assignment, and your instructor’s preference. Should you use statistics? Historical examples? Do you need to conduct your own experiment? Can you rely on personal experience? See our handout on evidence for suggestions on how to use evidence appropriately.

Make sure you are clear about this part of the assignment, because your use of evidence will be crucial in writing a successful paper. You are not just learning how to argue; you are learning how to argue with specific types of materials and ideas. Ask your instructor what counts as acceptable evidence. You can also ask a librarian for help. No matter what kind of evidence you use, be sure to cite it correctly—see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial .

You cannot always tell from the assignment just what sort of writing style your instructor expects. The instructor may be really laid back in class but still expect you to sound formal in writing. Or the instructor may be fairly formal in class and ask you to write a reflection paper where you need to use “I” and speak from your own experience.

Try to avoid false associations of a particular field with a style (“art historians like wacky creativity,” or “political scientists are boring and just give facts”) and look instead to the types of readings you have been given in class. No one expects you to write like Plato—just use the readings as a guide for what is standard or preferable to your instructor. When in doubt, ask your instructor about the level of formality they expect.

No matter what field you are writing for or what facts you are including, if you do not write so that your reader can understand your main idea, you have wasted your time. So make clarity your main goal. For specific help with style, see our handout on style .

Technical details about the assignment

The technical information you are given in an assignment always seems like the easy part. This section can actually give you lots of little hints about approaching the task. Find out if elements such as page length and citation format (see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial ) are negotiable. Some professors do not have strong preferences as long as you are consistent and fully answer the assignment. Some professors are very specific and will deduct big points for deviations.

Usually, the page length tells you something important: The instructor thinks the size of the paper is appropriate to the assignment’s parameters. In plain English, your instructor is telling you how many pages it should take for you to answer the question as fully as you are expected to. So if an assignment is two pages long, you cannot pad your paper with examples or reword your main idea several times. Hit your one point early, defend it with the clearest example, and finish quickly. If an assignment is ten pages long, you can be more complex in your main points and examples—and if you can only produce five pages for that assignment, you need to see someone for help—as soon as possible.

Tricks that don’t work

Your instructors are not fooled when you:

• spend more time on the cover page than the essay —graphics, cool binders, and cute titles are no replacement for a well-written paper.
• use huge fonts, wide margins, or extra spacing to pad the page length —these tricks are immediately obvious to the eye. Most instructors use the same word processor you do. They know what’s possible. Such tactics are especially damning when the instructor has a stack of 60 papers to grade and yours is the only one that low-flying airplane pilots could read.
• use a paper from another class that covered “sort of similar” material . Again, the instructor has a particular task for you to fulfill in the assignment that usually relates to course material and lectures. Your other paper may not cover this material, and turning in the same paper for more than one course may constitute an Honor Code violation . Ask the instructor—it can’t hurt.
• get all wacky and “creative” before you answer the question . Showing that you are able to think beyond the boundaries of a simple assignment can be good, but you must do what the assignment calls for first. Again, check with your instructor. A humorous tone can be refreshing for someone grading a stack of papers, but it will not get you a good grade if you have not fulfilled the task.

Critical reading of assignments leads to skills in other types of reading and writing. If you get good at figuring out what the real goals of assignments are, you are going to be better at understanding the goals of all of your classes and fields of study.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Awesome Guide on How to Write a Discussion Post - Tips and Samples

Understanding the Purpose of a Discussion Post in Your Course

The usual mornings of modern-day homo sapiens start with a greeting from social media asking you a daring question - 'What's on your mind?'. Sharing your thoughts and ideas with others is undeniable proof of your existence, and it has been so for millennials too.

Since human beings acknowledged the benefits of existing in communities, discussions have been the cornerstone of societal development. With the invention of the internet, a large portion has transferred into the digital world. Academia was fast to catch up with the wind of change, and now your coursework writing includes crafting a discussion post.

Discussion posts are a common assignment to facilitate student engagement, critical thinking, and collaboration with the course community. They often require students to engage with the course material or other students' perspectives by reflecting on course readings, responding to questions, or contributing to ongoing debates. Such discussions aim to encourage students to apply their knowledge, develop critical thinking skills, and participate in meaningful conversations with their peers. 

There is no such thing as an ultimate discussion post template, as everyone has strict individual guidelines for word limit, format, and tone. The posts are often graded and contribute to a student's overall course grade. 

In this article, we will go into a detailed explanation of how to respond to a discussion post, how to write it in the first place, and additionally offer you some helpful examples. 

Creating a Successful Discussion Post 

Every academic assignment seems like a terrifying challenge when you are a beginner. Especially the one that involves group discussion. People will comment on your comprehension of the topic, your ability to convey complex ideas into simple sentences, and your post's tone, length, and grammar. 

Keep your head up. Acquire the precision and determination of a dissertation writer . This introduction discussion post article will be a tell-all. At the end of it, you will be able to write a strong discussion post.

Read the Instructions Thoroughly 

Nothing in the academic world comes without its instruction. Discussion posts are no exception to the rule. They come with a load of criteria, and each course is different. To write an effective discussion post, you need to avoid technical errors. 

Before anything else, ensure you understand what you are asked to do. Your instructors usually outline their expectations for discussion forums and discussion board posts in the syllabus. Note any specific requirements or guidelines to ensure your post meets their expectations. 

Common requirements that you might encounter include word limit, format, tone, responses to other classmates, and engagement with course material. Pay attention to references: your professor might require citing an essay APA style, or it could be MLA or Chicago.  

By following the requirements, you can ensure that your discussion posts are high-quality, engaging, and in line with the expectations of your class. 

Ask Questions Without Hesitation 

The requirements for the forum discussion posts can be general. It's important to carefully review each post's instructions and ask your teacher if you have any additional questions. 

You can clarify vague points by posing questions before you start writing. Additional inquiries will give you a better awareness of the discussion prompt. This way, you will be able to write a high-quality, engaging post that meets your instructor's expectations. More clarity and better understanding will help you avoid mistakes affecting your grade. 

Before we dive into the discussion post reply examples, understand that asking questions is a critical step in writing. Don't be afraid to ask questions if you are unsure about something. You can always email your instructor for more details about the discussion board assignments.

Actually Speak Up 

The discussion posts can be more than just another classroom assignment. They are a great opportunity to strike up meaningful conversations and advance your knowledge on specific topics. Sharing ideas and having a constructive debate is an excellent way to sneak into other people's perspectives and find opinions you never considered before. 

A discussion post is where you speak up. When conveying complex ideas, it's important to clearly state your views, provide examples to support your statement, and encourage further debate. Use comprehensive sentences to combine all points and dig deep to find connections beyond the surface. Make sure to remain respectful of others' opinions and keep an open mind to different perspectives.  

Maintain Relevance

When writing academic discussion posts, it is important to maintain relevance to the debated topic. Make sure your post does not respond to a different question or does not inquire into a completely different subject. 

Because your actual post will be read, assessed, and commented on by a group of people studying the same topic, they will notice if your points and examples are outdated. Do thorough research and provide only up-to-date, relevant evidence to back up your opinion. Avoid posting anything off-topic. 

In addition to the textual evidence, include your professional or personal experience. This will enrich your discussion post and show your understanding of the subject matter. 

Don't Put It Off 

Putting any work off is a bad idea, and any one of us who has left it till the last second can agree. Be mindful of your time, and post your discussion thread well before the due date. 

Delaying work can prevent you from taking advantage of opportunities that may arise. This may lead to increased stress and decreased confidence, which can affect your productivity and grade. 

Discussion post is meant to show your comprehension and interest in the topic. Make sure you have enough time to do the required reading and extensive research to make a strong argument. Use the remaining time to check the grammar and your writing style. 

Check and Edit Your Posting    

If you check out our discussion post template, you will notice that it's not written in a single go. Professional writers will check and edit their pieces several times before hitting the submit button, and you need to adopt the same attitude. 

Checking and editing your writing can help ensure that your perspective is clearly and effectively communicated. This can help prevent misunderstandings and ensure your message is received as intended. 

Reviewing your discussion question and writing can help you professionally present yourself. Poor grammar, spelling, and punctuation can detract from the credibility of your point and make you appear less competent. Instead of submitting something that resembles a rough draft, use text editor tools to polish your writing. 

When you take the time to check and edit your writing, you are more likely to receive positive engagement from other members of the discussion forums. A well-written post is more likely to be understood and appreciated, leading to active class participation. This means more meaningful and productive discussions. 

Give Your Peers Insightful Input 

After you finish writing a strong discussion post that shows your unique perspective and personal experiences, make sure that it leaves a wide space for dialog and follow-up questions. 

Online forums are a great place for people to discuss their ideas and explore topics from a fresh perspective. Give your peers insightful input. Engage them in meaningful conversation and create a classroom environment. Challenge them to think outside the box. Challenge your own beliefs. Write discussion posts and comments that encourage diversity of thoughts. Post your response and if you must disagree, use respectful words and attitude. 

By encouraging critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration, you will impress your instructor and receive high grades and gain a deeper awareness of the subject in question. 

If Applicable, Include the Citations 

The last one of our valuable tips might be the most important. Remember, even though discussion postings are happening on the online forum within the online classroom, they are still class assignments. You must keep a certain academic standard which will be provided in your class syllabus. Correct grammar is not enough; you might be required to write Chicago, MLA, or APA format discussion post. 

By including citations, you can provide evidence to support your claims. This can help increase the credibility of your argument and make it more persuasive. This will also help you avoid plagiarism. 

When you cite the original source in your discussion post, it demonstrates that you have conducted thorough research and taken the time to fact-check the information. This creates a reliable space for further conversation. Chicago, MLA, or APA discussion post requires you to link and reference other sources, which expands the dialog outside your post.

And if all the above sounds exhausting to you, don't worry. Our paper writing services could take all the stress away from you!

Ready to Take Your Writing to the Next Level?

Our professional writers can help you create something truly unique and special

Writing Responses to Forum Posts

The discussion forum is meant for dialogues, where each post builds on the previous comment. Responding to a post allows you to expand the conversation and collective comprehension of a topic. Next, you will find discussion post-reply examples. 

While writing a compelling first comment is essential, it is also crucial to master the craft of responding to a strong discussion post. Take your time to read and understand the context of the argument presented in the post. Consider your perspective and how your answer can add more value to the debate. 

Write a response that is clear, well-reasoned, and relevant. Avoid lengthy posts and inflammatory language. Instead, communicate effectively and engage in a respectful classroom discussion. If you are referencing information from other sources, cite the original material. 

Take your time to review and edit your responses before posting them. Make sure there are no grammatical errors and that your response is well-structured and easy to understand. 

You can now skip to the introduction discussion post example. 

Discussion Post Example #1 

To make things easier, we offer you introduction discussion post examples. They will help you grasp the pattern better and craft a post that will impress your instructor and classmates. Use our discussion post examples to score the highest grade. 

Here is a short version of a discussion post that you might come across on an academic discussion forum: 

'In recent years, technology has profoundly impacted the field of education. Technology has transformed how we teach and learn, from online classes to educational software. Technology has made education more accessible and convenient for students all over the map. However, there are potential downsides to this revolution. Increased screen time can harm students' mental and physical health….' 

Here is an example of how you can agree with such a post: 

'I completely agree with the points you make in your post. Technology has indeed transformed the field of education, for better or worse. The accessibility of online learning platforms gave a wide range of students the opportunity for a better life and allowed them to get an education at their own pace.

I must agree that this revolution also came with its challenges. In addition to what you mentioned about screen time, educational software affects students' ability to think critically and solve problems independently. I think it is important to balance utilizing technology to enhance education and being mindful of its potential drawbacks.' 

Discussion Post Example #2 

Say your classmate made a strong point in their discussion post for your online class, but you disagree with their point and decide to explain your stance. Do you have a hard time coming up with a comprehensive answer? Don't worry! Let's master the art of how to respond to a discussion post. 

Here is a short example of a good discussion board post:

'In the past couple of years, sustainability has become a progressively important issue in the business world. Companies are taking steps to reduce their impact on the environment. Companies can lower their operating costs and increase efficiency by reducing waste and emissions. They can also improve their reputation and increase customer loyalty...' 

Here is a possible response that disagrees with the post: 

'I respectfully disagree with the given statement. While sustainability is an important issue, I don't believe it should be the top priority for companies. There is not enough evidence provided in your post that could prove that reducing waste lowers operating costs. First and foremost, businesses exist to generate profit and create value for their shareholders. Due to their nature, some industries might not be able to prioritize sustainability in the same way as others.

However, I believe that businesses should take steps to minimize their environmental impact and make sustainable choices where possible….' 

How to Post on Blackboard Discussion Board

Do you have to turn in your critical analysis essay tomorrow? No worries! We've got you. Buy essay online now as we must focus on figuring out how to post on a blackboard discussion board.

It's time for some additional tips. Now we have to get technical. If you are assigned to write a discussion post for your online courses or want to respond to one, you've come to the right place. 

The discussion board forums are divided into threads structured around an individual topic. Faculties create forums, and students are responsible for creating the threads. 

Here is a general outline on how to post on blackboard discussion board:

• Go to your course Home Page
• Select the Discussions button and open Forum
• Click Create Thread
• Enter the title for your thread
• In the Entry Message text box, write your argument. Don't forget to follow our discussion post template
• Find a button that says Post, Submit, or Publish

Responding to posts is an integral part of forums. Here is how you can respond to a thread:

• Open the thread
• Find the one you are required to respond
• Click the reply button
• Enter your text. You can attach files if such is required by clicking the Attachment function
• Click Post, Submit, or Publish

Professional Academic Assistance

Our discussion post template and tips will greatly help your academic career. But if you don't have enough time on your hands, you don't need to stress yourself out. If you thought to yourself, 'I wish someone could write my essays for me ,' leave a request " write my discussion post " and we can make your dreams come true.

Our professional writers will provide essays tailored to your specific needs, and an A+ in every subject will be on your way. To make sure that our writing services are exceptional, check out our pestle analysis example .

Are You Looking For Help With Your Writing?

Our experts will provide top-notch assistance with any writing project.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

Related Articles

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Common Assignments: Writing a Successful Response to Another's Post

Writing a successful response to another's post.

• Read postings by your classmates with an open mind; think critically about which posts are the most provocative to you.
• Example: Jessica, you make an interesting point about technology increasing without training increasing.
• Whether you are asserting agreement or disagreement, provide clear and credible evidence to support your response.
• Avoid using unsupported personal opinions, generalizations, or language that others might find offensive.
• When in disagreement, keep responses respectful and academic in tone.
• Ask open-ended questions, rather than questions that can be answered with yes or no. Those types of answers end the conversation, rather than pushing it forward.

Related Webinar

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Writing a Successful Discussion Post
• Next Page: Journal Entries
• 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
• 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 Discussion Questions That Actually Spark Discussions

🎁 In addition to this blog post, we have created a whole free course on this topic. The course includes new material, actual discussions between real learners, knowledge checks, a certification, and access to an exclusive community of people working in education. Check out the course here .

Running an online discussion board is a very different challenge from having a classroom discussion. In-person instructors can ask discussion questions on the fly, rephrase themselves for clarity, and direct the flow of a conversation with follow-ups. Online, you only have one shot to ask a discussion question that catches students’ interest and compels them to speak up. The stakes are higher than you think. Sad, empty discussion boards, just like a reliance on dry online lectures, lead to disengaged students and lackluster online experiences .

On the flip side, active discussion boards can elevate an online class from okay to extraordinary. Studies show that participating in classroom discussions reinforces knowledge retention through active learning and strengthens students’ critical-thinking skills.

If you can get a real discussion going between students, then you can reap the benefits of community and collaborative learning , even if your class never meets face-to-face. To do this, you will have to look beyond the dry writing prompts and uninspired reading-comprehension questions that so often sink a conversation before it begins. You’ll have to craft questions that inspire students to actually engage and interact with each other in a lively discussion.

Here’s how.

Promote Divergent Thinking

Divergent thinking, the ability to consider many possible solutions instead of just one, is the key to a lively discussion board. While it’s important to assess students’ comprehension of the course materials, creating questions with a single right answer shuts down discussion before it starts. Consider Bloom’s Taxonomy of knowledge, which illustrates different levels of learning and understanding. The bottom of the pyramid represents the most basic levels of learning, where thinkers converge on one correct answer. The top of the pyramid, the higher level of learning, is where learners’ diverge to create their own unique answers.

Avoid questions that utilize only the bottom three layers of the pyramid: remember (fact recall), understand (explain concepts), and apply (use information to solve or interpret). These techniques are great for tests or essay assignments, but they won’t create debate, conversation, or original thought. Great discussion questions do more than just test comprehension: They turn students from passive receptors of knowledge into active participants in their education. To push students into exercising higher-level thinking, write discussion questions that pull from the top of the pyramid:

• Analyze: Ask students to examine, classify, or question course materials to draw their own conclusions.
• Evaluate: Ask students to form an opinion and defend it; critique or appraise course materials.
• Create: Ask students to use what they’ve learned to construct something new.

Avoid closed-ended questions, such as those that ask students to list characteristics, define terms, explain concepts, or recall facts. Once the correct answer has been given, there isn’t much more to say, so the discussion fizzles out. Instead, create open-ended questions that don’t have a right or wrong answer. That way, each student can give their own unique perspective as they respond to and build on their classmates’ answers.

Have Learners Share What They Already Know

Discussion questions don't just have to focus on the creation or analysis of new information. Discussion questions that ask learners to share what they already know about a new idea, problem, or related concept, can be an equally impactful way to get the conversation flowing.

Discussion questions focused on uncovering what learners already know have several solid advantages:

• Position learners as active participants in knowledge creation and sharing, rather than passive receptacles waiting to be taught new information
• Reduce barriers to participation in the discussion; you don't have to come up with an innovative idea to have something worth sharing
• Give instructors an insight into existing knowledge, so we can tailor upcoming exercises accordingly

These kind of discussion questions work best when framed similar to a think-pair-share exercise, according to the Designing for Learning blog . Ask learners to share "what they think and where, when, or how they might have heard about a concept, person, idea or related event".

For example, questions that ask learners to share prior knowledge might be framed as:

• "What do you already know about this topic? What do you want to know?"
• "Agree or disagree with the following statement, and explain why your prior knowledge justifies your opinion"

These kind of questions work best at the beginning of a new module or topic.

Encourage Analysis

Tap into students’ higher reasoning skills by posing questions that require them to critically think about course materials to draw their own conclusions. Instead of just regurgitating information, students will have to first apply what they’ve learned to the problem and then make connections by questioning, comparing, and organizing their ideas. To create analytical discussion questions, root your query in the required readings and lectures. Be careful not to slide into questions with a single right or wrong answer; instead, give students room to interpret and evaluate facts as they craft an argument. This will also create space for discussion as students compare their conclusions. Here are some examples of discussion questions that encourage analytical thinking: Ask students to critique an author’s argument: Are the theories that Darwin presented in 'On the Origin of Species' anti-religion? Ask students to compare two theories: Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that human beings are inherently good. Thomas Hobbes disagreed, calling the human condition “nasty, brutish, and short.” Do you believe that humans are inherently good? Why or why not? Use causal reasoning : Based on the materials we’ve studied this semester, what do you believe is responsible for global warming? Ask questions that promote metacognition : How has your thinking about early childhood psychology changed since you began this course? ‍

Help All Learners Engage

Low engagement is not the only reason for empty discussion boards in online courses. In some cases, learners are eager to participate but don't feel comfortable doing so.

It's not hard to see why. The internet isn't always the kindest place, and sharing new ideas or opinions can make people vulnerable to a Twitter-style pile-on. As instructors we need to find ways to help the less confident share their thoughts.

The way we phrase our discussion questions and prompts can help achieve that aim:

Set Ground Rules Up Front

At the start of your discussion exercise, or at the top of the discussion board, make the rules of engagement clear. You may want to ask participants to avoid 'personalizing' an issue, or state what kind of language is unacceptable.

Use Unbiased Language in Your Questions

Gender neutral language ('salesperson' rather than 'salesman') and inclusive pronouns ('they/them') might help some people feel more welcome in the discussion. Remove any gender-specific or race-specific phrases in your discussion questions to make sure no one feels like they're not qualified to join the discussion.

Leverage Smaller Discussion Groups

Regardless of how confident your learners are, sometimes discussion boards just get too unruly to engage with. To avoid a situation in which the discussion becomes confused, try breaking your learners into smaller discussion groups and asking them to answer questions that way. Eduflow's discussion activity , for example, allows you to separate learners into smaller groups to create a safer learning environment.

Ask for Opinions

If the internet has taught us anything, it’s that everyone has opinions, and people love sharing them. Tap into this almost primal instinct by getting students talking not just about what they know but also about what they believe. Asking for opinions forces students to employ higher-level evaluation skills to justify their arguments. These questions require students to evaluate materials, create arguments, and defend those stances with facts and theories. To create questions that require students to take a stance: Ask them to compare two things: Who was the more influential Victorian poet, Tennyson or Hardy? Have them find a better way to do something: Traditionally, election polling has been conducted solely over the phone. How could this process be updated for the modern era while still maintaining poll integrity? Encourage them to argue why something is great (or terrible): Is there value in funding drug-prevention programs in public elementary schools? Why or why not? ‍

Ask Relational Questions

Get students invested in course materials by tying them to their everyday lives. Likewise, you can encourage discussion participation by writing questions that tie to current events or issues that are important to students. These questions draw students in because they allow them to apply their own perspectives and personal histories to the course materials. The answers can bring out strongly held opinions, which are usually the basis of healthy debates. A productive discussion can encourage students to question their assumptions and learn about alternate perspectives.   To help students relate to the discussion questions: Ask for examples from students’ lives: Give an example of a time that you witnessed racial inequality. How did it shape or alter your worldview? Discuss timely issues: Last year, over 5,000 species were moved to the list of endangered animals. What role should biologists play in conservation? Brainstorm solutions to societal problems: What could be changed to improve clean-water regulations in the United States? ‍

Introduce Controversy

Give students something to argue about. Questions designed to create dissent encourages to construct arguments and formulate opinions, and students will have to actively synthesize the material to form and support an opinion. While controversy is the quickest way to spark a long and passionate online discussion, be careful when introducing sensitive subjects. Learning forums should be a safe space for all students to express ideas without feeling threatened or subjugated due to their race, gender, orientation, or religious beliefs. Controversial questions will require heavier instructor moderation to ensure that the conversations stay civil. To introduce an element of controversy into your discussions: Create questions that challenge common orthodoxies: Traditionally, law enforcement has served as the community’s first line of defense against criminal behavior, but many are beginning to question this model. What would an alternate approach to community policing look like, and how effective do you think it would be? Relate questions to current events: Should hospitals keep formula on site, or should they promote breastfeeding above all other options? Reference major debates in your academic field: Will humanity ever discover extraterrestrial life? What form might it take? ‍

Ask Fewer Questions, but Better Ones

It can be hard to know which questions will resonate with students and which will fall flat, but avoid the temptation to pepper the discussion board with questions to see what will stick. This will overwhelm students and result in less participation, not more. Instead, ask fewer questions , but spend your time crafting truly great ones that appeal to students’ higher reasoning skills and spur meaningful discussion. Great discussion questions:

• Are clear and easy to understand. Avoid acronyms and scholarly language. Most students will not spend five minutes just trying to decipher what you’re asking.
• Foster a dialogue. Beyond just having no single right answer, a good discussion question leaves room for people to not just answer the question differently but build on those answers to create a back-and-forth discussion as well.
• Are inclusive. Everyone in the class should be equally prepared to answer the question, no matter what their background. Avoid questions that include details that are specific to only one culture, economic class, or gender. For example, if you’re teaching a class to a group of international students, don’t write questions based on the concept of American Thanksgiving.
• Align with the course objectives. Just because something is interesting or would spark a lively debate doesn’t necessarily mean it’s relevant to the course. Your ultimate goal is to encourage students to use and apply the course materials, so your questions should align with that aim. ‍

Writing Great Discussion Questions Is Only Half the Battle

For most students, participating in class discussions is a calculated risk. They’re putting their carefully constructed arguments and deeply held opinions on the line, with a real possibility of criticism from their peers. You can encourage more participation and discussion by mitigating that risk and creating a welcoming space for students to share. After you’ve posed your killer question, continue to moderate and guide the discussion to keep it flowing civilly. This can be daunting in a very large online class, but an LMS with good moderation features, like the ability to section students into smaller discussion groups , can help. For more materials on collaborative learning, pedagogy, and creating fruitful online discussions, join our newsletter .

Quick navigation

Talk to us the way you prefer, request a demo, get a quote, email sales.

Assignments usually ask you to demonstrate that you have immersed yourself in the course material and that you've done some thinking on your own; questions not treated at length in class often serve as assignments. Fortunately, if you've put the time into getting to know the material, then you've almost certainly begun thinking independently. In responding to assignments, keep in mind the following advice.

• Beware of straying.  Especially in the draft stage, "discussion" and "analysis" can lead you from one intrinsically interesting problem to another, then another, and then ... You may wind up following a garden of forking paths and lose your way. To prevent this, stop periodically while drafting your essay and reread the assignment. Its purposes are likely to become clearer.
• Consider the assignment in relation to previous and upcoming assignments.  Ask yourself what is new about the task you're setting out to do. Instructors often design assignments to build in complexity. Knowing where an assignment falls in this progression can help you concentrate on the specific, fresh challenges at hand.

Understanding some key words commonly used in assignments also may simplify your task. Toward this end, let's take a look at two seemingly impenetrable instructions: "discuss" and "analyze."

1. Discuss the role of gender in bringing about the French Revolution.

• "Discuss" is easy to misunderstand because the word calls to mind the oral/spoken dimension of communication. "Discuss" suggests conversation, which often is casual and undirected. In the context of an assignment, however, discussion entails fulfilling a defined and organized task: to construct an argument that considers and responds to an ample range of materials. To "discuss," in assignment language, means to make a broad argument about a set of arguments you have studied. In the case above, you can do this by
• pointing to consistencies and inconsistencies in the evidence of gendered causes of the Revolution;
• raising the implications of these consistencies and/or inconsistencies (perhaps they suggest a limited role for gender as catalyst);
• evaluating different claims about the role of gender; and
• asking what is gained and what is lost by focusing on gendered symbols, icons and events.

A weak discussion essay in response to the question above might simply list a few aspects of the Revolution—the image of Liberty, the executions of the King and Marie Antoinette, the cry "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite!" —and make separate comments about how each, being "gendered," is therefore a powerful political force. Such an essay would offer no original thesis, but instead restate the question asked in the assignment (i.e., "The role of gender was very important in the French Revolution" or "Gender did not play a large role in the French Revolution").

In a strong discussion essay, the thesis would go beyond a basic restatement of the assignment question. You might test the similarities and differences of the revolutionary aspects being discussed. You might draw on fresh or unexpected evidence, perhaps using as a source an intriguing reading that was only briefly touched upon in lecture.

2. Analyze two of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, including one not discussed in class, as literary works and in terms of sources/analogues.

The words "analyze" and "analysis" may seem to denote highly advanced, even arcane skills, possessed in virtual monopoly by mathematicians and scientists. Happily, the terms refer to mental activity we all perform regularly; the terms just need decoding. "Analyze" means two things in this specific assignment prompt.

• First, you need to divide the two tales into parts, elements, or features. You might start with a basic approach: looking at the beginning, middle, and end. These structural features of literary works—and of historical events and many other subjects of academic study—may seem simple or even simplistic, but they can yield surprising insights when examined closely.
• Alternatively, you might begin at a more complex level of analysis. For example, you might search for and distinguish between kinds of humor in the two tales and their sources in Boccaccio or the Roman de la Rose: banter, wordplay, bawdy jokes, pranks, burlesque, satire, etc.

Second, you need to consider the two tales critically to arrive at some reward for having observed how the tales are made and where they came from (their sources/analogues). In the course of your essay, you might work your way to investigating Chaucer's broader attitude toward his sources, which alternates between playful variation and strict adherence. Your complex analysis of kinds of humor might reveal differing conceptions of masculine and feminine between Chaucer and his literary sources, or some other important cultural distinction.

Analysis involves both a set of observations about the composition or workings of your subject and a critical approach that keeps you from noticing just anything—from excessive listing or summarizing—and instead leads you to construct an interpretation, using textual evidence to support your ideas.

Some Final Advice

If, having read the assignment carefully, you're still confused by it, don't hesitate to ask for clarification from your instructor. He or she may be able to elucidate the question or to furnish some sample responses to the assignment. Knowing the expectations of an assignment can help when you're feeling puzzled. Conversely, knowing the boundaries can head off trouble if you're contemplating an unorthodox approach. In either case, before you go to your instructor, it's a good idea to list, underline or circle the specific places in the assignment where the language makes you feel uncertain.

William C. Rice, for the Writing Center at Harvard University

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

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

How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples

Published on 21 August 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 25 October 2022.

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 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

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

What not to include in your discussion section, step 1: summarise 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.

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 emphasise weaknesses or failures.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

Start this section by reiterating your research problem  and concisely summarising your major 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
• Contextualising 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 organise 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 hypothesised association …
• The results contradict the claims of Smith (2007) that …
• The results might suggest that x . However, based on the findings of similar studies, a more plausible explanation is x .

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 .

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 generalisability is limited.
• If you encountered problems when gathering or analysing 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 generalisability 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 …

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 Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 25). How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/discussion/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to write a results section | tips & examples, research paper appendix | example & templates, how to write a thesis or dissertation introduction.

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Common Writing Assignments

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

These OWL resources will help you understand and complete specific types of writing assignments, such as annotated bibliographies, book reports, and research papers. This section also includes resources on writing academic proposals for conference presentations, journal articles, and books.

Understanding Writing Assignments

This resource describes some steps you can take to better understand the requirements of your writing assignments. This resource works for either in-class, teacher-led discussion or for personal use.

Argument Papers

This resource outlines the generally accepted structure for introductions, body paragraphs, and conclusions in an academic argument paper. Keep in mind that this resource contains guidelines and not strict rules about organization. Your structure needs to be flexible enough to meet the requirements of your purpose and audience.

Research Papers

This handout provides detailed information about how to write research papers including discussing research papers as a genre, choosing topics, and finding sources.

Exploratory Papers

This resource will help you with exploratory/inquiry essay assignments.

Annotated Bibliographies

This handout provides information about annotated bibliographies in MLA, APA, and CMS.

Book Report

This resource discusses book reports and how to write them.

Definitions

This handout provides suggestions and examples for writing definitions.

Essays for Exams

While most OWL resources recommend a longer writing process (start early, revise often, conduct thorough research, etc.), sometimes you just have to write quickly in test situations. However, these exam essays can be no less important pieces of writing than research papers because they can influence final grades for courses, and/or they can mean the difference between getting into an academic program (GED, SAT, GRE). To that end, this resource will help you prepare and write essays for exams.

Book Review

This resource discusses book reviews and how to write them.

Academic Proposals

This resource will help undergraduate, graduate, and professional scholars write proposals for academic conferences, articles, and books.

In this section

Subsections.

• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Readsynth: short-read simulation for consideration of composition-biases in reduced metagenome sequencing approaches

• Ryan Kuster 1 &
• Margaret Staton 1  

BMC Bioinformatics volume  25 , Article number:  191 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

191 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

The application of reduced metagenomic sequencing approaches holds promise as a middle ground between targeted amplicon sequencing and whole metagenome sequencing approaches but has not been widely adopted as a technique. A major barrier to adoption is the lack of read simulation software built to handle characteristic features of these novel approaches. Reduced metagenomic sequencing (RMS) produces unique patterns of fragmentation per genome that are sensitive to restriction enzyme choice, and the non-uniform size selection of these fragments may introduce novel challenges to taxonomic assignment as well as relative abundance estimates.

Through the development and application of simulation software, readsynth, we compare simulated metagenomic sequencing libraries with existing RMS data to assess the influence of multiple library preparation and sequencing steps on downstream analytical results. Based on read depth per position, readsynth achieved 0.79 Pearson’s correlation and 0.94 Spearman’s correlation to these benchmarks. Application of a novel estimation approach, fixed length taxonomic ratios , improved quantification accuracy of simulated human gut microbial communities when compared to estimates of mean or median coverage.

Conclusions

We investigate the possible strengths and weaknesses of applying the RMS technique to profiling microbial communities via simulations with readsynth. The choice of restriction enzymes and size selection steps in library prep are non-trivial decisions that bias downstream profiling and quantification. The simulations investigated in this study illustrate the possible limits of preparing metagenomic libraries with a reduced representation sequencing approach, but also allow for the development of strategies for producing and handling the sequence data produced by this promising application.

Peer Review reports

Since its first application, reduced metagenomic sequencing (RMS) has remained a niche approach to profiling microbial communities. First coined by Liu et al., RMS is the application of reduced-representation sequencing (RRS) to metagenomic libraries, adopting steps modified from the original ddRADseq protocol [ 1 , 2 ]. Metagenomic profiling of human samples comparing RMS and whole genome sequencing (WGS) yielded similar microbial profiles, and concerns of GC content bias weren’t detected. Three further studies have shown the potential for RMS to yield similar results or even outperform the traditional 16S and WGS approaches [ 3 , 4 , 5 ].

Although traditional approaches of amplicon and WGS can be effective for studying community structure, they exist on extreme ends of sequencing efforts and the benefits of each may exist in a middle ground. The conserved gene regions used in amplicon sequencing, often the 16S or ITS gene, can create bias towards some community members due to the primers selected and often these marker gene targets lack the resolution to consistently identify one species or strain from another [ 6 ]. WGS increases resolution but is comparatively expensive for deep sampling of rare taxa. Continuous, overlapping reads originating from closely related taxa may be computationally challenging to assign. Comparable to genotyping by sequencing (GBS), RMS reduces a genome into sampled DNA fragments by using one or more restriction enzymes [ 7 ]. These subsetted fragments represent predictable, targeted loci within a genome and function as hundreds of markers within each microbial genome allowing for species and even strain-level identification not found in amplicon sequencing alone. RRS increases per-locus sequencing depth for these fragments and allows for more samples to be analyzed in the same sequencing run, improving sequencing accuracy and lowering the per-sample cost of sequencing [ 1 , 8 , 9 ]. Unlike the original application of reduced representation sequencing for GBS, which produces fragments from the genome of an individual, RMS creates fragments from many unknown source genomes into a single pooled sequencing run.

Despite the potential benefits of RMS, the ability of this approach to accurately quantify at the species and strain level has not been tested at scale, possibly hindering adoption by metagenomics researchers. A major caveat to the RMS approach is that restriction enzyme motifs are enriched in a taxa-dependent manner [ 3 ]. Genome size, which can range over an order of magnitude in bacteria, as well as the varying degrees of sequence conservation among closely related microbes may complicate RMS quantification [ 10 ]. For example, genomic loci yielding RMS fragments may be variable even among closely related individuals, as a single base mutation altering a restriction cut site can lead to “allelic dropout” [ 11 ]. The degree to which this variation affects taxonomic identification and determination of relative abundance of community members has not been studied deeply. Every community member comprising the metagenomic sample will yield a unique distribution of fragment lengths.

Further complicating RMS profiling, sequencing effort (i.e. total read count) and size selection constraints may significantly impact the taxa included in the final sequencing library. Both PCR amplification and fragment size selection steps will affect the probability of a given DNA fragment surviving into the final sequencing reaction in a size-dependent manner with possible PCR biases dependent on template length [ 12 , 13 ]. Gel or bead mediated size selection is a critical step in RRS library design that helps to remove adapter dimers and optimize flow cell performance, and so remains an unavoidable library preparation step in most cases. An alternative RRS approach using isolength (type IIB) restriction enzymes has been proposed as a potential solution to this issue of variable fragment length [ 14 , 15 ]. Using a single enzyme that produces constant fragment lengths frequently across the genome may create detailed fingerprints of genomic communities without size selection steps, assuming adapter dimers can be reduced. Normalizing for the non-uniform read depths associated with a single organism is a task that existing metagenome profiling software aren’t designed to handle.

In applications such as RMS, where existing short read approaches are being used in novel ways, it may be difficult to gain traction because the features of the data are so understudied for the intended application. Spending money to develop new experimental techniques can be a highly risky endeavor, and it also requires the development of custom software tools and statistical approaches necessary to analyze this new form of data. In instances such as these, simulation can be useful to predict and overcome artifacts from library prep that could not be anticipated or otherwise measured without a ground truth. Capturing the nuances of RMS behavior under different conditions is a necessary step in understanding its application, therefore, we introduce the software readsynth as a simulation aid to researchers in considering these promising alternative approaches to sequencing metagenomes. Readsynth simulates read count constrained metagenomic sequence data based on pre-assembled genomes and user-defined community compositions along with multiple library preparation parameters.

In this study, both real and simulated RMS libraries are investigated to understand the influence of non-uniform fragment sizes and possible molecular and computational considerations that might be used to overcome these biases. Bias in fragment lengths may be occurring due to the biology of the individual community members being sampled and/or the technical library preparation. These factors prevent the total numbers of reads mapped to reference genomes from being directly used for calculating relative abundance. Our proposed solution uses the fixed length taxonomic ratio (FLTR) of read depths occurring within a non-uniform fragment length distribution. Barring the presence of strong GC bias, the ratio of two taxa should remain constant within all fragment lengths where both taxa are present. We first benchmark readsynth’s ability to faithfully capture features of mock community data. To demonstrate the utility of readsynth simulations, we then investigate this novel FLTR quantification approach that may overcome some of the challenges produced by non-uniform fragment distributions. Upon finding the library conditions that produce the best resolution, we consider the ability of these approaches when the search space includes a full database of all available reference genomes.

Implementation

Simulation software overview.

Readsynth was developed to simulate Illumina short read libraries to assess the compositional abundance of highly custom communities under multiple reduced sequencing conditions. Readsynth is a command line software package written in Python and C++ that uses commonly maintained statistical packages and consists of a digestion, size-selection, and read-writing stages (Fig.  1 ). The software was written to be highly customizable across three categories: (1) microbial community composition, defined by input genomes and their relative abundance; (2) experimental parameters, including reduced library approach, enzyme digestion rates, expected fragment length distributions, and custom adapter design, and (3) sequencing parameters, such as total read number, read length, and base quality value profiles.

Overview of readsynth inputs and flow of data. Necessary input files (shown in pink) are a collection of genome files and a corresponding abundance table for each. Output files include per fragment count estimates and the final, paired-end read fastq files

Readsynth first reads each input genome assembly individually to capture the set of possible fragments and calculate the probability of each sequence fragment surviving to the final library. Given a user input set of IUPAC restriction site motifs, overlap-tolerant regular expression (regex) searches are performed to exhaustively detect all possible cleavage sites and define fragments within the expected size-selection distribution. Fragments resulting from any combination of palindromic restriction enzyme motifs are modeled probabilistically to account for partial enzyme digestion. The probability of a fragment remaining at the end of digestion is calculated based on the probability of an enzyme cut producing the necessary forward and reverse adapter-boundary sites, adjusted accordingly for fragments harboring internal cut sites.

The per-fragment probability is a function of enzyme cleavage occurring at both ends of a sequence based on a user defined enzyme cut efficiency (c). Sequences that harbor greater numbers of internal cut sites (i) are less frequently represented as a sequenced read. The probabilities for each fragment length are then summed, approximating the expected fragments given a single genome copy for each genome in consideration.

Size selection

To simulate size selection, each fragment’s post-digestion probability is adjusted based on multiple additional factors affecting its representation. First, the expected fragment counts for each genome are scaled by their proportional abundance, as defined in the abundance table. The combined distribution of digested fragment lengths for all input genomes then undergoes size selection. The counts of the digestion distribution are used to scale a Gaussian probability density function at a given length, x, and this intersection of sample spaces defines the final size selection distribution (Fig.  2 ). This approach follows the size variability expected in gel-based size-selection equipment (e.g., SageScience BluePippin) at the narrow and broad range selection techniques while preventing artificial inflation of reads in lower abundance than produced by the Gaussian curve [ 1 ]. To simulate the hardware-imposed limitation on the composition of metagenomic fragments, the input read number (n) is divided evenly amongst the resulting size-selected distribution of the digested metagenome.

Digestion distribution of reduced metagenome sequencing (RMS) fragment lengths (bp) A after simulated enzyme fragmentation, counts represent expected fragment frequency with 1X genome coverage; B final read counts of size-selected fragments from the intersection of a Gaussian normal (μ: 150 bp, σ: 50) and A, scaled to the count at length 100 bp from A. Bar colors indicate individual bacterial genomes present in the simulated community

Error modeling

Readsynth applies a straightforward substitution error model to every read using randomly sampled Q scores from any existing fastq file, with several publicly available profiles to select from. Phred-like error probability rates from the sampled Q scores are used to mutate each nucleotide base to a non-self modification using pseudo-random number generation. Simulated fragments that are shorter than the simulated read length resulted in expected adapter contamination in data output (Supplementary Fig.  1 ), and users may provide any number of custom-designed adapters with specific overhangs.

Software benchmarking

In order to benchmark the simulation accuracy of readsynth, we use existing RMS data as a ground truth. The loci-specific enrichment of reads as well as the similarity in taxonomic profiles between real and simulated reads are used as performance metrics. Two previously sequenced mock community data sets produced with RMS approaches were considered. These communities used standardized concentrations of each community member, making them ideal for comparison with simulated reads. The first dataset from Snipen et al. consists of a Human Microbiome Project mock community of 20 bacterial strains (BEI HM-782D) digested using the restriction enzymes EcoRI and MseI [ 5 ]. To simulate the abundance of each taxon, the input abundance table used the reciprocal of the ribosomal copy number determined from the ribosomal RNA operon copy number database [ 16 ]. The second dataset from Sun et al. used a separate community of 20 bacterial strains (ATCC MSA-1002), which was assumed to have even genomic copy number [ 14 ]. This dataset was created using the type IIB restriction enzyme BcgI which produces short fragments with no length variation.

Extracting sequencing features from real and simulated mock communities

Sequence reads from the existing mock communities were adapter trimmed using Cutadapt 4.1 [ 17 ]. Reads were then mapped against each of the community member reference genomes using BWA MEM (Burrows Wheeler Aligner 0.7.17) [ 18 ]. Samtools 1.15.1 was used to select only paired end reads with the appropriate orientation. The Samtools stats and depth commands were used to summarize the read lengths as well as the per-position depth of all aligned reads [ 19 ]. Using positional information from these reads, a custom fragment length distribution was estimated for use in simulation. The count ratio of fully digested fragments to the larger fragments immediately encompassing them (r) was used to estimate the cut efficiency (c) of enzyme digestion except for the case of complete digestion in which c = 1. In cases of incomplete digestion, following the per-fragment probability model, fragments containing internal cut sites will occur less frequently than their contained fragments such that r must be greater than 1.

Only fragment lengths in the range of 100 bp to 450 bp were used to estimate cut efficiency, as these were observed to be less constrained by size selection and therefore more reliable in preserving true read ratios (Supplementary Fig.  2 ). Aligning community mixtures of many taxa against individual reference genomes in BWA MEM returned many reads that aligned to multiple genomes (Supplementary Fig.  3 ). Further, variability between the published reference sequence and the real sequence data resulted in the rare presence of RMS fragments not reproducible in simulation. In order to make meaningful comparisons between the real and simulated data, custom Python scripts were used to extract positional information from high quality read alignments in the sam-formatted file in order to preserve the fragment size distribution while removing duplicate alignments.

Simulation was performed using fragment size distribution, enzyme cut efficiency, and Q score profile derived from the real sequence data. Although we expect these derived inputs to most closely resemble the real data, additional simulations were run to test the importance of fragment size distribution and enzyme cut efficiency. Three fragment length distributions were considered to measure the impact of size selection. The first was created using the exact fragment counts extracted as a custom.json file from the extracted sequence alignments. The second simulated size selection using the mean and standard deviation from the samtools summary statistics to define the distribution shape. The third size selection distribution used identical standard deviation values, but with the mean fragment size increased by 100 bp. BWA MEM and Samtools were again used to map simulated reads to the reference genomes and the read depth at every expected fragment position was counted. Cumulative read depth across every position in the mock community was compared between real and simulated sequences using both Pearson and Spearman correlation.

Assessing compositional-biases using simulation

Simulations of RMS sequencing reads were informed using the mock community and two representative gut metagenomic communities based on sequencing efforts from complex microbial samples. Mock community sequences from Snipen et al. (replicates SRR10199716, SRR10199724, and SRR10199725) were again used as a baseline to quantify taxonomic abundances from a mixture of 20 bacterial taxa at known relative abundance. Taxa were assumed to be approximately equimolar in ribosomal operon count as described in the product specifications. A single human stool sample (SRR5298272) prepared with RMS using NlaIII and HpyCH4IV was used to establish a microbial community with greater richness for simulation [ 2 ]. These biological sample reads were assigned putative taxonomic labels using Kraken2 and Bracken (Standard plus protozoa, fungi & plant database ‘PlusPFP’ June 2022) and resulting taxonomic identification numbers were used to download representative genomes from each of the 691 non-host hits [ 20 , 21 ]. Finally, the OTU profile resulting from gut samples from 2,084 individuals from the Healthy Life in an Urban Setting (HELIUS) study served as a basis for simulating microbial communities with authentic taxonomic abundances [ 22 ]. Of the 744 OTUs, 610 unique RefSeq genome references from the genus and species level served as the basis for simulation. When multiple OTUs from the same genus level were encountered, multiple species from this genus were selected based on genomes with full, major releases in GenBank, which included many highly similar strains to be simulated in the same community. All simulations were performed using the software readsynth (0.1.0; commit 88d8bb1).

To assess the sensitivity of RMS to capture rare taxa, metagenomes based on HELIUS communities were simulated using a series of increasing total read counts (1 × 10 5 , 1 × 10 6 , 1 × 10 7 , and 1 × 10 8 paired end reads) and four combinations of restriction enzyme double digests. The combinations of restriction enzymes selected (EcoRI/AgeI, EcoRI/MseI, HhaI/AgeI, and HhaI/MseI) were chosen for the diversity of the cut site frequency and GC content of the recognition motifs (Table  1 ). Additionally, a type IIB enzyme “BcgI” digest was simulated to assess the application of the resulting isolength fragments.

Paired end reads from each of the real and simulated datasets were aligned to a combined reference genome concatenated from all known members in the metagenome using BWA MEM. Mapped reads with a MAPQ score of zero were removed to avoid reads that map closely to multiple reference genomes. Custom Python scripts (available at github.com/ryandkuster/readsynth_analysis) were used to recreate the original genomic fragments corresponding with each read pair based on the simulated start and end positions for each fragment produced in simulation. Only those fragments harboring no internal cut sites were kept as incomplete digests are expected to unpredictably affect quantification and assessment of existing RMS data found these fragments to be rare. The observed count and corresponding taxonomic assignment were stored for each fragment.

We also assess the performance of RMS data when the reference database is not curated to only those references in the ground truth set, as is the case in most practical applications of metagenomic profiling. Reads simulated using taxa derived from the Liu et al. RMS stool sample dataset were queried against the Kraken2 ‘PlusPFP’ database. We wanted to see if mapping and recreating fragments using an inclusive database would produce taxa count and abundance comparable with the input 691 taxa simulated at even relative abundance.

Fixed length taxonomic ratios

The frequency of fragments was analyzed individually across the range of observed fragment lengths. Within each discrete fragment length, the ratios of the observed counts between all taxa present were calculated. The ratio was calculated iteratively by dividing the individual fragment count by the average fragment count for each of the other taxa present at that length (Fig.  3 ). These taxonomic ratios were then averaged over all fragment lengths to produce an n x n matrix of all n taxa. Because many taxonomic ratios were missing, all columns in the taxonomic ratio matrix were scaled to the taxon with the greatest number of relationships to all other taxa. The row average of this scaled matrix was used to predict relative taxonomic abundance for all taxa.

Visual representation of read depths originating from hypothetical taxa x, y, and z present in a 1:2:1 ratio. The left distribution shows fragments resulting from reduced sequencing under size selection or PCR fragment length biases. The differences in relative abundance estimates produced using mean and median read depths is compared with the taxonomic ratio approach (FLTR) introduced here. The ratio table on the right displays the averaged pairwise read depth ratios calculated individually within each fragment length. Even assuming no bias within each fragment length, the mean and median read depth estimates produce relative abundances that don’t account for variance in the size distribution, which is often not normal or uniform

Performance of software

A hypothetical gut microbiome was established to assess the computational performance of readsynth on larger metagenomic communities. Reference genomes derived from human gut samples (Liu et al. [ 2 ]) were downloaded and simulated under various input settings using a single core on a AMD EPYC 7F72 24-Core Processor (x86_64, 3028.149 MHz) (Supplementary Table  1 ). The cumulative size of the metagenome reference sequences influenced the time to simulate, but choice of enzymes had the largest impact on time and performance. Frequent, 4-base cutters produced many potential fragments to process, and use of less frequent motifs performed more efficiently. The most time consuming task tested, two 4-base cutters against 691 microbial genomes and the human genome, took 204 min; all other tasks took less than two hours.

Benchmarking of simulation accuracy

Spearman correlation captured a monotonic relationship between real and simulated read depths across the length of all 20 reference genomes in the mock community, and therefore was sensitive to differences in fragment presence or absence. The reads simulated using 100 percent enzyme cut efficiency corresponded closely with the real data (Fig.  4 group E; r = 0.92 to 0.94), comparable to the covariance measured between replicates of the real data. Simulation with a lower enzyme cut efficiency of 80 percent produced lower correlation with the real data, possibly resulting from increased novel loci surviving the fragmentation process (Fig.  4 group D, r = 0.66 to 0.68).

Spearman correlation coefficient of metagenome-wide, position-specific read depth for each of three replicates of real and simulated mock community sequencing. Real1-3 are the depth correlations of the real sequencing data replicates. Mapped read depth correlations from readsynth simulations are shown in A – E : A custom (.json) dictionary of fragment lengths derived from real sequence data and cut efficiency derived from real sequence data; B normal distribution of fragment lengths and cut efficiency derived from real sequence data; C normal distribution of fragment lengths with fragment mean increased by 100 bp and cut efficiency derived from real sequence data; D normal distribution of fragment lengths and cut efficiency reduced to 0.8; E normal distribution of fragment lengths and cut efficiency increased to 1

Pearson correlation was sensitive for comparing fragment read depths and was affected by noise in the data, as can be seen by variation within the replicates of the real sequencing datasets. The simulation that produced the highest read depth correlation coefficients between 0.76 to 0.79 used exact fragment size distributions informed by the real dataset (Supplementary Fig.  4 , group A). Using a normal distribution produced coefficients between 0.71 and 0.76 (groups B, D, E), suggesting the real data was approximated by applying readsynth’s normal distribution approach. The distribution with mean fragment lengths shifted only 100 bp longer affected read depth considerably with coefficients of 0.67 to 0.7 across replications (Supplementary Fig.  4 , group C). Simulations of the isolength dataset produced lower Pearson correlation (r = 0.56) but higher Spearman correlation (r = 0.97). The use of type IIB enzymes avoids variability in fragment length and while simulations with readsynth aligned closely with sequence presence-absence, simulation did not capture variability in the per-fragment depth.

Comparing Kraken2/Bracken profiles of real and simulated mock communities

The adapter-trimmed reads from the previously described mock community sequencing efforts were profiled using custom databases with Kraken2 (2.1.2) and Bracken (2.7). Raw reads mapping to each species-level identification was used as a metric of performance between the real and simulated reads. Generally, simulations captured trends in the distribution of real sequence data accurately (Fig.  5 ). The simulations with increased fragment size selection and decreased cut efficiency (Fig.  5 , groups C and D) caused larger shifts in predicted distributions. These changes are largely due to taxa-specific patterns of fragmentation where some community members, such as Phocaeicola vulgatus and Staphylococcus epidermidis , contain disproportionate read counts originating from either long or short fragments (Supplementary Fig.  5 ).

Kraken2/Bracken percent abundance profiles based on read assignments of real and simulated mock community sequencing. Real1-3 are the relative abundances of mapped reads per species produced from the real sequencing data. Mapped read depth correlations from readsynth simulations are shown in A – E : A custom (.json) dictionary of fragment lengths; B normal distribution and cut rate; C normal distribution and cut rate with fragment mean increased by 100 bp; D normal distribution and cut rate with cut rate reduced to 0.8; E normal distribution and cut rate with cut rate increased to 1. All fragment distributions and cut rates estimated from real sequence data unless specified

Impact of simulation parameters and quantification method

The FLTR approach is an alternative to read median or mean depth for profiling that measures the average relationships in read depth ratios between the taxa present at a given length. To test the FLTR approach, we first compared it to mean depth and median depth using the Snipen et al. 2021 mock community samples. Across the three replicates, using ratios produced relative abundance estimates similar to those produced using either the median or mean read depths, with Pearson correlation to the ground truth relative abundances ranging between 0.809 and 0.852 (Supplementary Fig.  6 ). Estimates of relative abundance across the three replicates show consistent, taxa-specific patterns of over- and underabundance in several of the 20 mock community members (Supplementary Fig.  7 ). These differences may be the result of sequence-specific amplification biases or slight deviations from the reported proportions expected from the mock community standard.

Data simulated from the 610 HELIUS gut microbial taxa were used to assess differences in profiling performance for the new FLTR approach versus previously published methods under varying library preparation conditions. Across all simulated HELIUS datasets, FLTR estimates of relative abundance outperformed the mean and median read depth in every instance (Supplementary Table  2 ). In some extreme cases, relying on the mean and median depths fall far from the target relative abundances (Fig.  6 ). Reads simulated from the HELIUS data captured several general trends not captured with the mock community analyses. Most notably, we see a strong interaction between the characteristics of restriction enzymes selected and the signal of the taxa simulated. Use of two frequent restriction enzymes, HhaI and MseI, each with 4 bp recognition motifs, required 100 million reads in order to detect > 90% of the input taxa. Interestingly, the use of two infrequent restriction enzymes, EcoRI and AgeI, was able to identify a higher percentage of taxa at lower sequencing efforts relative to the other treatments considered (Fig.  7 ). At 10 million reads, the combination of EcoRI and MseI captured 96.1% of taxa. The majority of simulated datasets performed moderately well at 10 million reads, and this was used as the basis for additional simulations. Lowering the mean fragment size for the EcoRI/MseI simulations by 100 bp reduced the number of identifiable taxa to 89%, and an increase by 100 bp marginally improved detection to 96.7%. Simulating the isolength, BcgI fragmentation of the HELIUS data returned only 56.1% of the 610 taxa, compared with the 66.7% of taxa identified by HhaI/MseI at the same sequencing effort (Supplementary Fig.  8 ). Across all simulations at 10 million reads, between 16 and 20% of reads were discarded per simulation due to the multi-mapping criterion described in the methods.

Comparisons of ground truth relative abundance (black) vs. results obtained using taxonomic ratio approach (green), mean depth (blue), and median depth (red) for 567 taxa returned using HELIUS simulated reads digested with HhaI and AgeI using 1 × 10 8 total reads

The relationship between the input simulated reads target and the percent of taxa identified across 4 combinations of restriction enzyme double digests. Of the expected 610 unique taxa, many are not captured at lower levels of coverage. Combination of rare cutters (EcoRI and AgeI) performed better at these lower levels of coverage

In order to compare the profiling performance of RMS reads when mapping to a known set of reference genomes and a fully inclusive database, 691 taxa based on the Liu et al. dataset were simulated using even abundance. Using even relative abundance allows qualitative assessment of profiling quantification efforts independent from taxonomic assignment, which expectedly contain naming and identification discrepancies between the input reference genome naming and the resulting assignments. Unlike the HELIUS results, aligning these reads to the known set of references was able to uniquely identify every input genome (Supplementary Fig.  9 ). The same simulated reads were then assigned to the species level of the ‘PlusPFP’ Kraken2 database using Bracken, which includes the target genomes and an additional 28,763 non-target genomes at the species level or lower. The resulting number of taxonomic hits was inflated from 691 to 1534 total taxa. To explore the basis of these false positive taxonomic assignments and potential methods of reduction, the reference genomes from these preliminary hits were then used for BWA MEM alignment and fragment recreation in place of the curated, known reference approach described above. Upon selecting reads whose source fragments aligned to the expected cut positions and removing multi mapped reads, 93.8% were able to map precisely to fragments expected in 749 of the 1,534 taxa from the Kraken2/Bracken profile, greatly reducing the false positives. Visual inspection of the recreated fragment length distribution captured the expected profile (Supplementary Fig.  10 ). Applying the FLTR approach to these reads yielded broadly even estimates of relative abundance matching the expected community composition. Some of the estimates have much lower than even representation, but comparatively these results further support the fallibility of using mean and median read depths to estimate abundances using RMS (Fig.  8 ).

Comparisons of ground truth vs. results obtained using taxonomic ratio approach, mean depth, and median depths by mapping simulated reads naively to a fully inclusive, pre-made Kraken2 database (‘PlusPFP’) before fragment recreation. A total of 749 taxa were returned using this approach. Reads from 691 taxa were simulated based on the metagenomic taxa from Liu et al. [ 2 ] sequence SRR5298272 using even representation and 1/749 was used as ground truth to reflect the assumption of equal abundance. In silico reference genomes were digested with NlaIII and HpyCH4IV producing ~ 3.3 × 10 6 total reads

Simulation is a meaningful way to measure the behavior of bioinformatics approaches, but its utility hinges on its ability to faithfully capture features found in real sequencing data. The applications of short reads are highly variable. Often the impacts of library prep are overlooked in the production of bioinformatics tools, and more tools need to be considerate of these possible nuances. Readsynth simulations of RMS mock communities produced realistic taxonomic distributions of genomic fragments and the output sequence profiles corresponded closely to those found in the limited RMS mock community sequences that exist. Each taxon present in the simulated RMS mock community produces a unique digest profile at varying relative abundance, and readsynth simulations faithfully captured these influential patterns in read depth across all combined loci in the metagenome. These simulations also demonstrate the influence that library preparation can have on profiling efforts. The fragment origin and read depth were sensitive to even minor differences in simulated library parameters, particularly size selection and enzyme efficiency.

Restriction enzyme digests of metagenomic communities produce irregular fragment length distributions that cannot be readily modeled assuming features of an underlying distribution. Therefore, calculating relative proportions in the context of a mixture of individuals prepared this way is a challenge that has not been properly addressed to account for the influences of library preparation. The FLTR methodology proposed here may benefit efforts in metagenomic quantification when fragment or target length differs between organisms. It may also have useful applications outside of metagenomics where fragment size bias affects abundance estimates using read depth, such as genotyping approaches using reduced representation sequencing. We found that using the FLTR approach appears to be a more stable metric than either mean or median depth, often because RMS fragments are not unimodally distributed within an individual genome. Removal of multi-mapped reads may compound this effect by leaving only a small number of reads representing a genome, and these reads may exist in regions of the fragment length distribution that are influenced by size-selection and PCR length biases. For RMS approaches to overcome the confounding influence of variable fragment lengths, it is a necessary prerequisite to first recreate fragments in order to know fragment lengths. Fortunately, if a reference genome assembly is reliable enough to produce a strong hit to RMS reads, it should be able to provide a framework for simulating the expected fragments so long as the cut sites are preserved. Conversely, reads that remain unassigned or ambiguous cannot be interpreted as proportional due to the uneven contribution of community members, the removal of which may result in inflated estimates of relative abundance. It may be possible to retain multi-mapped reads using estimated abundances of uniquely aligned kmers, such as the KrakenUniq approach to assignment. Such approaches have not been tested in this study.

Simulated assessments of RMS’s capability to capture rare taxa suggest that it may be possible but is highly dependent on the library preparation methods. Given a finite set of sequence reads, the restriction enzymes selected and size sampling protocols will determine which taxa produce enough signal to be detected. Fragmenting a set of highly diverse genomes with a frequent cutting enzyme may produce hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential fragments, but when these reads are distributed between taxa whose relative abundances differ by orders of magnitude, the signal for rare taxa may be lost. It is likely that enzyme digests that produce shorter fragments will create more multi-mapping collisions, as the shorter read lengths reduce mapping confidence. Here we found that digests using HhaI/MseI or the BcgI isolength enzyme produced the greatest number of potential fragments, but based on the sensitivity of the profiling approach employed, few were actually informative because the short fragments they produce often lack resolution against a highly inclusive database. This mapping-based phenomenon may also explain the success of infrequent cutters, which captured a greater percent of the taxa present using a fraction of the overall fragments as the frequent cutters. Increasing sequencing effort may allow for greater resolution when many fragments are produced; however, using upwards of 100 million reads per sample to capture rare taxa may reduce the cost benefits of RRS. Therefore, it is recommended to consider each community’s complexity when considering the necessary read coverage, as has been similarly proposed for WGS profiling [ 23 ].

When two closely related taxa exist within a community, simulations indicate that it may become difficult to estimate the relative abundance of each using the RMS approach. This is because most fragments originating from both organisms will be identical and only a small fraction of loci will be uniquely informative to a taxon. In instances when only a small number of fragments may be used for quantification, abundance estimates using read depths may become highly sensitive to per-fragment biases originating from size-selection or PCR. The development of ddRADseq protocols for GBS were based around comparing conserved regions of the genome between closely related species. With RMS, conservation between these fragments may be counterproductive when trying to parse the individual members of a complex community. The taxonomic ratio methodology described here does not rely on normalization, but it is also not designed to handle redundancies in multi-mapping fragments, as evidenced by the set of unidentified taxa in the simulated HELIUS community. Eliminating fragments based on similarity may ultimately eliminate all useful, identifying markers if multiple, nearly identical strains are present. Retaining these fragments requires a means of identifying distinct taxa when aligning against a fully inclusive database of potential matches, and the results may be highly dependent on the database as well as the behavior of the aligning tool used [ 24 ]. We also recommend future investigations into profiling software choice and handling ambiguously assigned reads.

While simulation cannot be expected to capture all the nuances of real sequencing data, it can help find the edge cases where existing tools might fail to perform as intended. Using a set of largely pre-existing bioinformatics tools, our assessments here of simulated RMS data may be successful in some instances and very underpowered in others. While RMS offers promising applications, profiling benchmarks have not been widely tested on mixed samples including viral, protist, or non-fungal eukaryotic members and instead focus largely on prokaryotic and fungal taxa. Simulation could be a useful means in determining whether such mixed communities contain enzyme site biases preventing meaningful profiling accuracy. RMS may provide a fast and affordable profiling technique for communities that are relatively simple in structure. It may also be fast and economical in instances where detecting rare taxa is not critical. One of the largest obstacles preventing community use of RMS is the lack of bioinformatic tools developed to handle the data it produces, and applying existing profiling tools will not work out of the box. Both developers and users of new tools should be cognizant of the intersection between sample preparation and downstream analytical tools selected.

Availability and requirements

Project name: Readsynth

Project home page: github.com/ryandkuster/readsynth

Operating system(s): Linux/MacOS,

Programming language: Python3, C++ 

Other requirements: Python packages: numpy, pandas, and seaborn

License: Apache-2.0

Any restrictions to use by non-academics: none.

Availability of data and materials

The code and parameters used in all simulation and analytical steps used in this study are available on GitHub at https://github.com/ryandkuster/readsynth_analysis and raw data are stored at https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.nzs7h44zk . The freely available package readsynth can be downloaded at https://github.com/ryandkuster/readsynth . The mock RMS and isolength sequencing datasets analyzed for this study can be found in the NCBI BioProject PRJNA574678 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA574678 and figshare https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12272360.v8 . The RMS gut metagenome data is available in NCBI BioProject PRJNA377403 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA377403 . The Kraken2/Bracken PlusPFP database (6/7/2022) and indices used in this study were downloaded from https://benlangmead.github.io/aws-indexes/k2 .

Abbreviations

Reduced metagenomic sequencing

Reduced representation sequencing

Double-digest restriction-site associated DNA sequencing

Genotyping by sequencing

Polymerase chain reaction

Operational taxonomic unit

Peterson BK, Weber JN, Kay EH, Fisher HS, Hoekstra HE. Double digest RADseq: an inexpensive method for De novo SNP discovery and genotyping in model and non-model species. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(5):11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Liu M, Worden P, Monahan LG, DeMaere MZ, Burke CM, Djordjevic SP, et al. Evaluation of ddRAD seq for reduced representation metagenome sequencing. PeerJ. 2017;5:9.

Ravi A, Avershina E, Angell IL, Ludvigsen J, Manohar P, Padmanaban S, et al. Comparison of reduced metagenome and 16S rRNA gene sequencing for determination of genetic diversity and mother-child overlap of the gut associated microbiota. J Microbiol Methods. 2018;149:44–52.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hess MK, Rowe SJ, Van Stijn TC, Henry HM, Hickey SM, Brauning R, et al. A restriction enzyme reduced representation sequencing approach for low-cost, high-throughput metagenome profiling. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(4):18.

Snipen L, Angell IL, Rognes T, Rudi K. Reduced metagenome sequencing for strain-resolution taxonomic profiles. Microbiome. 2021;9(1):19.

Goodrich JK, Di Rienzi SC, Poole AC, Koren O, Walters WA, Caporaso JG, et al. Conducting a microbiome study. Cell. 2014;158(2):250–62.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, et al. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(5):10.

Miller MR, Dunham JP, Amores A, Cresko WA, Johnson EA. Rapid and cost-effective polymorphism identification and genotyping using restriction site associated DNA (RAD) markers. Genome Res. 2007;17(2):240–8.

Baird NA, Etter PD, Atwood TS, Currey MC, Shiver AL, Lewis ZA, et al. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(10):7.

Ochman H, Caro-Quintero A. Genome size and structure, bacterial. In: Kliman RM, editor. Encyclopedia of evolutionary biology [Internet]. Oxford: Academic Press; 2016. p. 179–85. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128000496002353

Andrews KR, Good JM, Miller MR, Luikart G, Hohenlohe PA. Harnessing the power of RADseq for ecological and evolutionary genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(2):81–92.

Davey JW, Cezard T, Fuentes-Utrilla P, Eland C, Gharbi K, Blaxter ML. Special features of RAD sequencing data: implications for genotyping. Mol Ecol. 2013;22(11):3151–64.

DaCosta JM, Sorenson MD. Amplification biases and consistent recovery of loci in a double-digest RAD-seq protocol. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(9):14.

Sun Z, Huang S, Zhu P, Tzehau L, Zhao H, Lv J, et al. Species-resolved sequencing of low-biomass or degraded microbiomes using 2bRAD-M. Genome Biol. 2022;23(1):36.

Sun Z, Liu J, Zhang M, Wang T, Huang S, Weiss ST, et al. Removal of false positives in metagenomics-based taxonomy profiling via targeting type IIB restriction sites. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):5321.

Stoddard SF, Smith BJ, Hein R, Roller BRK, Schmidt TM. rrnDB: improved tools for interpreting rRNA gene abundance in bacteria and archaea and a new foundation for future development. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(D1):D593–8.

Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnetjournal Vol 17 No 1 Gener Seq Data Anal [Internet]. 2011; Available from: https://journal.embnet.org/index.php/embnetjournal/article/view/200

Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinforma Oxf Engl. 2010;26(5):589–95.

Danecek P, Bonfield JK, Liddle J, Marshall J, Ohan V, Pollard MO, et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. GigaScience. 2021;10(2):giab008.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lu J, Breitwieser FP, Thielen P, Salzberg SL. Bracken: estimating species abundance in metagenomics data. Peerj Comput Sci. 2017;5:14082.

Google Scholar  

Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol. 2019;20(1):13.

Deschasaux M, Bouter KE, Prodan A, Levin E, Groen AK, Herrema H, et al. Depicting the composition of gut microbiota in a population with varied ethnic origins but shared geography. Nat Med. 2018;24(10):1526–31.

Rodriguez-R LM, Konstantinidis KT. Estimating coverage in metagenomic data sets and why it matters. ISME J. 2014;8(11):2349–51.

Anyansi C, Straub TJ, Manson AL, Earl AM, Abeel T. Computational methods for strain-level microbial detection in colony and metagenome sequencing data. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:17.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Bode Olukolu for the initiation of research into genotyping by sequencing for microbiome exploration. We would like to thank Aaron Onufrak for software testing and the Hadziabdic lab for guidance on amplicon sequencing methodology.

Financial support was provided by the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture and the Scholarly and Research Incentive Funds from the Graduate School, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA

Ryan Kuster & Margaret Staton

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RK designed the research and carried out the experiments. MS supervised the project, provided software guidance, and contributed to the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan Kuster .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file1 (docx 21675 kb), 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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kuster, R., Staton, M. Readsynth: short-read simulation for consideration of composition-biases in reduced metagenome sequencing approaches. BMC Bioinformatics 25 , 191 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05809-3

Download citation

Received : 09 January 2024

Accepted : 10 May 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-024-05809-3

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

• Reduced-representation

BMC Bioinformatics

ISSN: 1471-2105

• General enquiries: [email protected]