Introduction and discussion
(3) Introduction Section
This section should indicate why the study was done and give the reader sufficient background to understand the
report. The “why” of the study will include historical information that leads to your study and the significance of the
study to a specific discipline (such as developmental neurobiology) to which the study belongs. The reader, after
perusing the introduction, should know precisely the importance of the problem being addressed. You should write
about the questions you will be answering in this experiment. Although, the content of the introduction should start
broad and narrow in scope as the introduction proceeds, be careful not to start too broad. This could lead to
problems with the scope of the paper. Note: any historical background (that is, previous studies) must be properly
cited. This section must include 4 peer reviewed outside sources (outside of lab book and text book), of which 2
should be primary literature.
This section contains the basic background information for the lab report. Be sure to comment on what is the
significance of this study and its relation to the larger field. Give an example of why the study is significant. Your
hypothesis is used to make the prediction(s). The predictions are based on the background information that was
gathered. You should have a clear statement of the reason for performing the lab along with including the rationale
for each technique used.
• What was the purpose of each experiment? For each experiment, include questions that will be answered
and the expected predictions of the results for each question. Try to include a hypothesis. (without saying
“My predictions are…” or “My hypothesis is…”)
• Note: Just because you are writing a report about a lab exercise does not mean you are basing the entire
report on one hypothesis. You are more than likely going to need to discuss more than one set of variables,
which would lead to more than one hypothesis or prediction.
• This section should be between 450-700 words long and smoothly flow from one topic to the next.
(6) Discussion Section
In brief, the Discussion section is where results are interpreted and conclusions are drawn. The significance and
interpretation of the study should be explained in this section. Specific points made in the Results section should be
discussed in light of previous studies and hypotheses. This means there needs to be cited literature in this section.
Often, new hypotheses are put forth, based on the experimental outcome. This may be included in your discussion.
The most important part of the Discussion section is establishing what the results indicate, both for the ongoing
study and for future studies. For each point made in the results, you need to discuss why things happened the way
they did. If there were errors made, then this needs to be included and in context with the interpretation of the
results. Were the questions you included in the Introduction section, answered by this study? If not, how could the
study be redesigned? Some questions that can be answered in interpreting the results in the Discussions section are:
Why are these results the same as (or different from) previously published studies? What parameters of the
experimental design were important in the expected (or unexpected) results? Are some of the results due to artifacts?
How do you know? How might the experimental design be altered to diminish artifacts? What are limitations of the
experimental design? Why are these results important in a broader context?
• This section should be approximately 500-700 words long.
• This section should include a clear discussion in relation to each hypothesis and/or prediction and should
discuss what is known about the topic (reported by other researchers)
Include a brief summary of your results with reference points to your results, and explain how you
interpreted your results (why did things turn out the way they did?). Be sure to refer to the specific
illustration whenever discussing the results.
• Remember nothing is EVER proven. So the results either support or refute your original
hypotheses/predictions.
• Also, explain why the control and experimental outcomes were what you expected or were not what you
expected.
• Comments should also be made about problems and/or improvements for the next time. This is where you
can discuss the experimental design and follow-up studies.
• This section is where you are essentially asking “why” everything/anything happened during the
experiment
