《学术论文写作指导DiscussionofResults》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《学术论文写作指导DiscussionofResults（40页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、Chapter 7Discussion of Results1aIntroductionThe Functions of a Thesis Discussion of ResultsSample Analysis of a Masters Thesis Discussion of ResultsFrequently Asked Questions2024/9/222aIntroductionIn this chapter,we will be considering the discussion of results as a separate chapter from the present
2、ation of results and conclusion chapters.Some theses combine their presentation and discussion of results or findings in a single chapter.In contrast,some theses combine the discussion of results and conclusion in one chapter.The advantages of haing a combined chapter ：it can avoid restating the res
3、ults when you discuss them.it is much easier for the reader to follow the development of the thesis.2024/9/223aThe approach that is taken is often determined by discipinary preference and the type of thesis that is being written.A discussion with your supervisor will assist you in arriving at the op
4、tion best suited to the research you are reporting.The approach taken in this chapter can be easily adapted to the choice you make.2024/9/224aIf you decide to combine your presentation of results with your discussion of those results,you will most likely devide your results into meaningful sections(
5、e.g. according to research questions/hypotheses,thematic or methodological foci) and present your discussion of each section of results immediately after each section or part section of results that has been presented.The same approach would apply if you decided to combine your discussion of results
6、 and your conclusion.2024/9/225aConsidering now the discussion of results as a single chapter,we begin with a consideraton of the purpose and functions of the chapter before looking at a range of move and sub-move options that might be considered.The chapter will again conclude with a discussion of
7、some key lingustic features of discussion chapters,some answers to frequently asked questons,further activities and suggestions for further reading.2024/9/226aWhat is meant by discussing a result?When you discuss a result,you should go beyond the result and express your own opinions about the result
8、,i.e.your personal speculation on the reasons for a result,your judgement on its significance,implications,and the possible direction for future research,etc.The essential difference between reporting a result and discussing the result is that the former is fact-driven while the latter is opinion-dr
9、iven.However,your opinions are not whatever you have thought about but they should be based on either existing theories or previous studies or common sense.Therefore,in discussion,references are indispensable.2024/9/227aUsually the discussion going together with the report of a result cannot be too
10、long since a lengthy discussion will separate the answers to the research questions and it will distract the readers attention.The elaboration of a discussion,if it is necessary,can be made in the last chapter of Conclusion.2024/9/228aThe Functions of a Thesis Discussion of ResultsThe key purpose of
11、 this chapter is to discuss the meaning and significance of the results or findings of the research you are reporting.1.An overview of the aims of the research that refers to the research questions or hypotheses2.A summary of the theoretical and research contexts of the study3.A summary of the metho
12、dological approach for investigating the research questions or hypotheses4.A discussion of the contribution you believe your results or findings have made to the research questions or hypotheses and therefore to existing theory,research and practice(i.e.their importance and significance)5.This discu
13、ssion will often include an interpretation of your results,a comparison with other research,an explanation of why the results occurred as they did and an evaluation of their contribution to the field of knowledge2024/9/229aThe Content and Structure of a Thesis Discussion of ResultsMoves1.Provide bac
14、kground information2.Present a statement of result(SOR)Sub-movesa.restatement of aims,research questions and hypothesesb.restatement of key published researchc.restatement of research/methodological approacha.restatement of a key resultb.expanded statement about a key resulta.explanation of resultsu
15、ggest reasons for resultb.(un)expected resultc.reference to previous researchd.exemplificationprovide examples of resulte.deduction or claimf.support from previous researchh.justification for further research2024/9/2210aSample Analysis of a Masters Thesis Discussion of ResultsIntroduction to Disussi
16、on of ResultsThis chapter provides a detailed analysis of key research findings presented in chapter 4, with reference to each of the research questions.The results of the study are also discussed in relation to previous research studies.The first section(Section 5.2) discusses the relationship betw
17、een self-report WTC and WTC behavior in the three classroom contexts observed. Differences observed in WTC behavior in each of the contexts, and variations in WTC over time,are discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. The fourth section presents the factors that learners perceived as being of most importa
18、nce in affecting their WTC in class.The last section is a brief summary of the chapter.2024/9/2211aThis one also provides an advance organizer of what is to be presented in the chapter.The author begins by expaining that her discussion will be organized around the four research questions and that it
19、 will focus on the relationship between her results and those of earlier research studies.While this is an important feature of a discussion chapter,it should also refer to the other featurs of the discussion that are included in the discussion chpter.The paragraph then outlines the focus of each se
20、ction of the discussion chapter.2024/9/2212aResearch Queston 11.The first research question investigated the relationship between self-report WTC and WTC behavior in class.2.This queston relates to the concept of WTC as a trait variable or a state variable.3.correlaton analysis,indicated that self-r
21、eport WTC strongly predicted WTC behavior in group works,while self-report WTC negatively predicated WTC in the whole class and pair work.4.The strong positive relatonship between self-report WTC and WTC group work demonstrated that participants self-report WTC was consistent with their WTC behavior
22、 in group work.5.However,participants WTC behavior in the whole class and in pair work contradicated their WTC reported in the questonnaire.Move 1a(background)Move 2a(SOR)Move 2b(expansion)2024/9/2213a6.Results form an examination of the relationship between self-report WTC and WTC behavior in three
23、 classroom contexts on an individual basis,were found to be mixed(see Table 4.1) .7.For half of the class (Sherry,Jerry,Ray and Cathy),self-report WTC was consistent with actual WTC behavior in class,whereas for the other half(Erica,Sophie,Allan and John),self-report WTC contradicted classroom WTC b
24、ehavior.Move 2a(SOR)Move 2b(expansion)2024/9/2214a8.It is interesting to note that Erica,who reported high WTC in the questionnaire,appeared to demonstrate low WTC across the three class situations,as well as appearing to lack interest in class.9.She was observed to be rather quiet and worked on the
25、 tasks by herself most of the time.10.Sometimes the teacher had to call her to answer questions.11.In the interview,she attrivuted her extremely low participation across all contexts to the classmates whom she seemed to be unfamiliar with,and some of whom,to her,seemed to have snatched opportunities
26、 for communication.12.For this learner,WTC did indeed appear to be influenced by lack of familiarity with interlocutors and lack of appropriate opportunities to participate in class.13.Likewise,Allan and John,who reported high WTC,seemed to be relatively quiet in the classroom.14.Both denonstrated l
27、ow willingness to communicate,particularly in the whole class situations. Move 3d(illustration)Move 3a(explanation)Move 3d(illustration)2024/9/2215a15.This may have been due to an over-optimistic self-reporting of their WTC,suggesting,perhaps,that their self-report WTC was in effect payinglip servic
28、e to the survey,without actually having made any commitment to participate actively(Dornyei and Kormos 2000:290).16.In other words,they may have been concerned about presenting themselves favorably,thus causeing them to respond inaccurately.17.Another possible interpretation could be that they had h
29、igh trait WTC,but they may have needed extra encouragement from the teacher,and more cooperation from their peer classmates,for them to particitpate more.18.Allan actually expressed his concern in the interview that there were not any chances to talk when the teacher talked most of the time in the w
30、hole class situation.Move 3a(explanation)Move 3c(previous research)Move 3a(explanation)2024/9/2216a19.Sophie,who belonged to the group of low WTCin self-report,on the other hand,showed very high WTC in the whole class and was an equally active participant in pair and group work.20.Her self-report WT
31、C seemed to contradict her claim of herself being generally an extroverted and talkative person,a personality trait which was manifested in her actual behavior in class.21.The findings above seemed to reveal the dual characteristics of WTC proposed in previous studies:the trait-like WTC and the situ
32、ation-based WTC.22.MacIntyre et al.s(1998:546) claim that WTC in L2 should not be limited to a trait-like variable but a situational variable with both transient and enduring influences appeared to be supported by the findings of this study.Move 3d(illustration)Move 3e(claim)Move 3c(previous researc
33、h)2024/9/2217a23.It is possible, however,that learners WTC behavior in the class context was influenced by both trait-level WTC and state-level WTC.24.As MacIntyre et al.s(1999) has pointed out,trait WTC may bring an individual into situations in which communication was likely,but once in a particul
34、ar situation,state WTC could influence whether communication would take place.25.MacIntyre and his colleagues argued that state WTC predicted and affected the decision to initiate communication within a particular situation,shich may explain the discrepancy between self-report WTC and WTC class beha
35、vior among half of the participants in the present study.26.Although their trait-level WTC determined their general tendency in communication, state-level WTC appeared to have a particularly strong impact on the participants communication behavior in particular class context.27.Their state-level WTC
36、 seedmed to be influenced by a variety of factors, which will be discussed in Section 5.5.Move 3e(claim)Move 3f(previous research)Move 3e(claim)2024/9/2218a28.The findings of the relationship between self-report WTC and WTC behavior in class in this study do not appear to fully support those of Chan
37、 and McCroskey (1987),in which observational data indicated that fewer of the students who had low scores on the WTC scale participated in class, than those who scored high on the scale.29.In Chan and McCroskeys study,more of the total participation in class came from students with high scores than
38、from students with low scores. 30.They therefore concluded that class participation may be in large measure a function of an individuals orentation toward communication(trait WTC).31.The results of the current study do not support this conclusion.32.A possible explanation is that Chan and McCroskey
39、considered students participation in class where L1 instead of L2 was used.33.This would make the findings of the present study not comparable with those of Chan and McCroskeys,since WTC in L2 was unlikey to bea simple manifestation of WTC in the Move 3b(unexpected)Move 3c(previous research)Move 3a(
40、explanation)2024/9/2219aL1 MacIntyre et al.s(1998:546).34.It was also possible that not all learners with high WTC in the present study exhibited high participation.35. Similar results to those of Chan and McCroskey may have been found had the sample size been larger.36.The findings of the present s
41、tudy do,however, support Weavers(2004) conclusion that students WTC within the EFL classroom varied significantly across different speaking situations and tasks.Move 3b(unexpected)Move 3c(previous research)2024/9/2220a37.The findings also lend support to MacIntyre et al.s(2001a:377) acknowledgement
42、of the weakenss of the self-report questionnnaire as a reliable method for exaniming state WTC, because thinking about communication in the L2 is different from actually doing it.38.While their study failed to find any evidence for the existence of stated WTC by using the single method of a self-rep
43、ort survey,in the present study,state WTC was identified by observation of WTC in three classroom contexts.39.On this basis,structured observation is proposed as a more suitable method for the examination of state WTC,a variable difficult to identify by using a single self-report technique.Move 3b(e
44、xpected)Move 3c(previous research)Moves 3g&h(further research&justification)2024/9/2221a1.Sentences 1-2:a restatement of the question being addressed.2.Sentences 3-7:a statement of result is presented with a short expansion.3.Illustrations of the statement of result are then presented,first those re
45、vealing the same patternErica(sentences 8-12) and Allen and John(sentences 13-18)and then an illustration of the opposite pattern Sophie(sentences 19-20).4.In prestenting the first group of illustrations,explanations are also offered.Previous research was referred to once in order to support the exp
46、lanation being given.5.As a result of these illustrations of the statement of result,further claims are made(sentences21-27) and these are supported with reference to previous research.2024/9/2222a6.the extent to which the results were expected or unexpected in light of previous research is then con
47、sidered (sentences 28-38).First the author considers the research that her results do not support (sentences 28-35) and,in doing so, offers some explanations(sentences 32-35).Then she refers to studies that do support her results(sentences 26-38).7.The discussion closes with a recommendation and jus
48、tification for further research(sentences 39).8.The author then moves on to discuss her results for the second reserarch question.However,we will focus our attention now on part of her discussion of the results for research question 4.2024/9/2223aResearchQuestion4Research question 4 investigated the
49、 factors that could have an influence on willingness to communicate behaviour in class.In a separate sub-section for each factor,the author considers a range of variables.These are identified in her introduction to the discussion of question 4 results.Once we have looked at this introducition,we wil
50、l focus our attention on her discussion of two of these factors(mediun of communication and cultural influences).2024/9/2224a1.Previous studies have found that factors such as motivation,attitudes,perceived competence and language anxiety played a role in determining willingness to communicate and a
51、ctual communicative behavior.2.Cultura context was also confirmed by empirical studies as having an impact on the relationship between WTC and its antecedents.3.These factors were identified by means of self-report data.4.This study,however,managed to distinguish a number of factors that appeared to
52、 affect learners WTC in various class situations from both self-report data and learners perceptions from the participant interviews.5.These factors included:number of interlocutor(s) in a particular contxt,familiarity with interlocutor(s),interlocutor(s) task performance,faniliarity with and intere
53、st in topics under discussion in tasks,task types for pair/group work,mediun of communication and participants cultural backgrounds.2024/9/2225aMediumofcommunication1.Whether L1 or L2 was used as the medium of communication also appered to exert an influence on learners WTC.2.As MacIntyre et al.s(19
54、98:546) have suggested,the differences between L1 and L2 WTC may be due to the uncertainty inherent in L2 use,and the level of linguistic competency can be one differentiating factor existing in L1 and L2 WTC.3.In this study,Jerry noted that a lack of linguistic competence in L2 inhibited communicat
55、ion,but when L1 was used,such a problem was not present.4.Cathy also considered a lack of lexical resouces in L2 as a factor affecting her perceived competence,which in turn influenced willingness to communicate at times.5.This seems to support Houses(2004) claim that lack of actual lingustic compet
56、ence in L2 can prevent communication.Move 2a(SOR)Move 3a(explanation)Move 3d(exemplification)Move 3b&c(expected result&previous research)2024/9/2226a6.Differences in L1 and L2 WTC were also detected in task engagement in pair work.7.Dornyei and Kormos(2000) found that learners relationships with the
57、ir interlocutor had a considerable impact on the extent of their engagement in the task in L1,but this relationship failed to emerge in an L2 task.8.They suggested that when L2 was used as the medium of communication,the challenge of trying to express ones thoughts using a limited linguistic code in
58、 addition to decoding the interlocutors utterances,creatd an emotional state different from the communication mode in L1,which may alter ones perceptions of the constraints of the interacion(ibid.293).9.Differences in WTC in pair work in both L1 and L2 were,however, beyond the scope of this study an
59、d were not,as a consequence,examined.10.It appears to be another area for further research.Move 2a(SOR)Move 3c(previous research)Moves 3a&c(explanation & previous research)Move 3g(further research)2024/9/2227aCulturalinfluences1.Kubota has argued that the way people think,speak,write and behave is c
60、ertainlyinfluenced by the culture in which they are brought up,and certainly cultural difference indeed exists (1999:15).2.As discussed in the previous chapter,empirical studies have shown that the cultural context has an impact on WTC,and WTC varies greatly across cultures.3.Although these studies
61、were associated with WTC in L1,it seemed ones cultural background also exercised an effect on ones WTC in L2.4.At least one learner voiced this point of view in this study.Move 1b(background)Move 2a(SOR)2024/9/2228a5.Ray mentioned the influence of his home culture on his willingness to communicate a
62、nd relatively low level of communication in whole class situations.6.Ray came from Japan,a country whose culture in its discourse is characterized by collectivism,which promotes conformity to group goals and homogeneity,the opposite face of which is the discouragement of individual diversity and cre
63、ativety(Kublta 1999:20; Cheng 2000).7.Cultural norms in Japan do not value talkativeness,and Japanese generally tend not bo be ouspoken(McCrosskey et al.1985).8.It has been cited in the literature that this perceived reticence was due to Confucian influences(Cheng 2000).9.Ray attributed his relative
64、 quietness in the whole class to this cultural influence rooted deeply in him.10.He regarded it as inappropriate to volunteer answers without being called upon by teacher.11.This attitude seems to support Tsuis(1996) claim that there appeared to be a widespread phenomenon in Hong Kong schoolsMove 3d
65、(exemplification)Move 3c(previous research)Moves 3a&c(explanation & previous research)Move 3d(exemplification)Move 3b&c(expected & previous research)2024/9/2229a that students would not take the initiative to volunteer answers until they were called upon by the teacher to do so.12.It was an interest
66、ing point that Ray made of himself,of not wanting to be regarded as being talkative or attracting the teachers attention by his peers.13.He seemed to be aware of his relations with others in the social process of conducting himself(Wen and Clement 2003) as he tried to avoid negative evaluation from
67、his peers(Tsui 1996).14.This concern he felt about the judgement of the peers upon his WTC behavior in class caused him bo become less likesly to get involved in whole class commnications. 15.Although for particular learners such an Ray,WTC seemed to reflect the influence of his home culture,it was
68、not possible to draw any pattern between cultural background and WTC behavior in class in this study,given the small sample size;and it was not a research question addressed in this study.Moves 3a&d(explanation & exemplification)Moves 3a,c,d(explanation,previous research,exemplification)Moves 3a&d(e
69、xplanation & exemplification)Move 3e&g(implied hypothesis for further research)2024/9/2230aConclusion1.This chapter has summarized the present studys findings,and discussed them with reference to each of the research questions.2.The results have also been considered in relation to relevant previous
70、studies.3.The study confirmed that WTC in L2 possesses dual characteristics:a trait-level WTC and a state-level WTC.4.It suggested that trait WTC may determine an individuals general tendency to initiate communication would take place.5.Being a situational-based variable,WTC in L2 was found to be su
71、bject to change across situations and over time.6.It supported the claim that a single self-report method was not appropriate to examine state WTC,a variable detected by the observational method employed in this study.7.Structured classroom observation was thus proposed to be a more suitable method
72、for the examination of state WTC in class,a variable diffcult to identify by using a single self-report method.2024/9/2231a8.Results from this study pointed to a number of factors that participants perceived as being of most importance in influencing their WTC behavior in three classroom contexts.9.
73、These factors included:number of interlocutor(s) in a particular communicative context, faliliarity with interlocutor(s), interlocutor(s) task performance,self-confidence in communication, falimiarity with and interest in topics under discussion,task types for pair/group work,medium of communication
74、 and influence of participants cultural backgrounds.2024/9/2232aSomeKeyLinguisticFeaturesofaThesisDiscussionofResultsAs you discuss the significance of your findings in light of the big picture(the literature you presented in your literature review chapter),there will be occasions when you can be qu
75、ite assertive about the significance and contribution of your findings to the field you are working within and occasions when you need to be more tentative in the claims that you make.While care needs to be taken,you should not shy away from claiming that a particular finding supports or does not su
76、pport existing research and knowledge if it does.2024/9/2233aIn the discussion chapter,you will seek to account for particular findings.If you are presenting possibilities rather absolute certainties, you need to make sure that you hedge in your presentation of them.In the previous chapter,we referr
77、ed to various ways in which hedging can be achieved.As an example of how this can be achieved in the discussion chapter,consider the extensive use of hedging approaches that have been used in the following paragraph fromw our sample thesis discussion.2024/9/2234aHedginginthediscussionofResults1.The
78、findings above seemed to reveal the dual characteristics of WTC proposed in previous studies:the trait-like WTC and the situation-based WTC.2.MacIntyre et als (1998:546) claim that WTC in L2 should not be limited to a trait-like variavle but a situational vaviable with both transient and enduring in
79、fluences appeared to be supported by the findings of this study.3.It is possible,however,that learners WTC behavior in the class context was influenced by both trait-level WTC and state-level WTC.4.As MacIntyre et al.(1999) has pointed out,trait WTC may bring an individual into situations in which c
80、ommunication was likely,but once in a particualr situation,state WTC could influence whether communication would take place.5.MacIntyre and his colleagues argued that state WTC predicted and affected the dicision to initiate Hedge verbHedge verbAdjectiveModal verbModal verb2024/9/2235acommnication w
81、ithin a particular situation, which may explain the discrepancy between self-report WTC and WTC class behavior among half of the participants in the present study.6.Although their trait-level WTC determined their general tendency in commnunication,state-level WTC appeared to have a particularly stro
82、ng impact on the participants communication behavior in particular class contexts.7.Their state-level WTC seemed to be influenced by a variety of factors,which will be discussed in Section 5.5.Modal verbHedge verbHedge verb2024/9/2236a In another example from our sample thesis,consider the authors w
83、illingness to be up front and assertive in sentence below.1.In Chan and McCroskeys study,more of the total participation in class came from students with high scores than from students with low scores.2.They therefore concluded that class participation may be in large measure a function of an Indivi
84、duals orientation toward communication (trait WTC),rather than a situation -specific response(state WTC).3.The results of the current study do not support this conclusion.4.A possible explanation is that Chan and McCroskey considered students participation in class where L1 instead L2 was used.2024/
85、9/2237aFrequentlyAskedQuestions1.Can I introduce any new literature in the discussion of results?The short answer is no.It is sometimes the case that your data analysis will reveal something interesting or important that you had not previously considered so you may need to find out what literature e
86、xists on the issue.Having done that,you should include it in your literture recview so that you can refer back to it in your discussion chapter.2.To what extent do the ideas presentd in the discussion chapter have to be based on the literature presentd in the literature review?The reasoning that you
87、 offer in support of a claim or the reasoning that you offer as an explanation for a result,be it expected or unexpected,should be informed by the literature.Your own ideas,outside the literature,should only be used to argue a point that is based on the literature.2024/9/2238a3.How much of the liter
88、ature review do I need to refer to when comparing one of my results with that of a study referred to in the literature review?You should only refer to the relevant part of the study presented in the literature review.For example,if you are comparing findings,you should only refer to that finding and
89、 not other details that may have been presented in your review of the study.On other occasions,you may want to compare an aspect of the methodology of your study(e.g. sample size,setting) and that of another study referred to in the literature review.Again,only the relevant aspect of the methodology should be discussed.2024/9/2239aTHANKS!2024/9/2240a
