II. Discussion
Major points are the building blocks of your paper. Major points build on each other, moving the paper forward and toward its conclusion. Each major point should be a clear claim that relates to the central argument of your paper.
Minor points are subtopics within your major points. Minor points develop the nuances of your major points but may not be significant enough to warrant extended attention on their own.
The number of major and minor points will vary from paper to paper and from major point to major point. Each major point should be one paragraph.
A. Paragraph 4: Note that depending on the elaboration to each of the items below, each could stand alone as a paragraph in and of itself.
1. Restate the expected findings.
2. How do these connect to the findings presented in the literature review?
3. What conclusions can be drawn?
4. How do these findings add to what is already known about your topic?
5. Speculate on why your findings occur- that is what process is happening.
For example if you find male adolescents hit each other more than female adolescents hit each other during recess. You would conclude that male adolescents are more aggressive than female adolescents. You might speculate that the behaviors that are allowed in males vs females may be driving this effect. Or you might speculate that the data (reference) that males play more violent video games than girls could be driving the effect.
B. Paragraph N-3:
1. Possible limitation (the most impactful limitation)
2. The effect of the above limitation on the data
3. Suggestion on how to overcome the limitation in a possible follow-up
C. Paragraph N-2:
1. Possible follow-up study
2. What would this follow-up add to what we know about your topic?
D. Paragraph N-1:
1. Possible application of these finding
2. Importance of the application/utility of the application
E. Paragraph N:
1. Big picture conclusion- linked to the first paragraph in the Lit Review.

Discussion Checklist
Did you begin with a statement support or failure to support the original hypothesis?
Did you relate your findings to previous research, mentioned in the literature
review?
o Do the results from this study match with other results?
 If so, how and what can be concluded? That is, how do these findings add
to what you knew going in? What new thing do we now know?
 If not, why not? What can be concluded? How does this limit what can be
concluded from the previous studies?
Did you include practical applications/conclusion of the study?
Did you evaluate your study? Discuss the limitation?
o Did you evaluate issues in depth, rather than list a series of problems with the
study?
o Did you interpret the results with emphasis on the theoretical and practical
consequences?
Did you add future directions?
o If so, did you elaborate rather than just list a series of topics?
Did you end on the “big picture”? That is, did you link the end to what you presented
in the literature review?
Does the format follow an upside-down funnel, where it starts with specifics before
becoming general?

_________________

We aren’t meant to really reject the null, so please make it sound like that even though the study didn’t work out that there is some benefit to knowing that passive exercises isn’t the only type to do act as a stress-management tool or be used to benefit a person in this type of school setting.

Please only use the sources used in the lit review.