The discussion can be considered the main substance of the paper. It contains a very brief restatement of the conclusions and relates them to the original research question stated in the introduction. It addresses whether the results were congruent with those predicted by the research hypothesis and addresses the reasons why that is so. If the expected results were not obtained, the discussion will state why that is so. This may include methodological limitations, sources of errors, logical flaws, and other factors; you will apply critique methods to your own study.
In this section, you will also address how the obtained results fit in with the existing knowledge about your topic. Finally, you will state how your findings could be applied, extended, or improved.
I’ve attached the rubric, Intro, and the Professors feedback from the intro. Please read the feedback so that you will know how to address the intro.
Feed Back from Professor – For Introduction Paper
Introduction (Topic Overview):
Nooooiccce! The opening paragraph leaves li’l doubt about what you’re studying. And, it’s well worded. Here are thoughts for improving: – Write “Social media *have* become the bedrock . . .” (media is a plural word) – On p. 3 you say “Most sites have . . .” but what do you mean by sites? You have to be clear about that – On p. 3, “*Whereas* such policies are a step in the right direction . . .” (APA style)
Introduction (Question or Problem Stated)
You actually need to say in your Introduction what the gap in the research is. What is the “hole” in the literature that occasions *your* research?
Introduction (Statement of hypothesis)
Naturally flowing from what the gap in the research is, you have to formulate a hypothesis.
Introduction (Proposed Study)
You’re definitely emerging here, Kimberli! : ) I richly reward your sophisticated effort here. To improve, you say “from various parts of the state.” What state do you mean? Please say, if you mention state at all at this point. — In the Introduction don’t go into informed consent. For that wait until the Method.
Introduction (Existing Knowledge)
You tend to be v. clear, and you undeniably have done some v. good background research on your topic. To improve: Be specific whenever you can to support the sense of focus among your readers. On p. 3, for example, write, “A person who has experienced cyberbullying will tend to hide from anyone who can identify *that person* in real life.” In the instance of the intended meaning of that sentence this would be especially important. — On p. 4, what do you mean by go viral? That is not an official term and will not be understood in the same way by different readers. If you use it you must define. — I do not understand the statement that crosses over from p.5 to p.6. What exactly do you mean to imply by “insulate”? — What you have in this Introduction as the last two paragraphs should be moved much further up. Those paragraphs are literature review and therefore should first appear on about p. 2 or 3.
Introduction (Critical Review)
Make sure for each source to make note of any important limitations and to say how the source pertains to the work that you are planning.
Introduction (Articulation of Response)
The writing is groovy! The cover page is a terrific touch. You correctly number pages of your report in the upper right-hand corner. I love your use of the word “hurl” (p. 2). Words that suggest an image of something involving physical movement are powerful, and those would be useful in connection to a topic like this one!
Here are my thoughts for improvement! – The I in Internet is always capitalized (there’s only a single Internet). – When you begin a sentence with “This,” follow this word with a keyword from psychology (see the bottom of p. 3). Doing that will strengthen your argument and help to keep your reader’s focus. – The organization needs to be improved. As early as p. 5, you shouldn’t be saying “This paper . . .” That sort of reflexive looking at the current work should come when you’re much closer to the end of the Introduction section. – Consider using subheadings (on their own line and placed to the left margin), including Literature Review and Current Study – Write the word References in bold type. – In regard to references, double check that the formatting is all APA style. Two things I see right away are that (1) you should use a hanging indent (i.e., the first line of a reference should be flush to the left margin and subsequent lines of that reference should be indented) and (2) for a book reference you no longer need to include the place of publisher.