Video summary

How to Write RESULTS and DISCUSSION of IMRaD (with example)

Main summary

Key takeaways

Educational

Main ideas / lessons (Results vs. Discussion in IMRaD)

1) Where Results and Discussion fit in IMRaD

In IMRaD, R = Results and D = Discussion.

The key distinction emphasized is:

  • Results = what you found (objective, unbiased; no interpretation)
  • Discussion = what the results mean (interpretation + explanation)

Method / checklist-style instructions

A. How to write the RESULTS section (R)

Core rule

  • Present unbiased, objective findings.
  • No explanation, interpretation, or discussion—only what was discovered.

Include and follow these points

  1. Be clear, concise, exact

    • Report only the data.
    • Use tables and numerical data that directly answer your:
      • research questions / SOP (stated purpose / specific problems)
      • hypothesis

  2. Use visuals

    • Tables are primary.
    • Graphs/charts and other visuals can summarize complex numerical data.

  3. Follow logical order

    • Present tables/data in the sequence of the specific problems / research questions.
    • Align generally with the order used in Methods or the problem statement.

  4. Highlight key findings (without explaining yet)

    • Mention trends, significant differences, or patterns.
    • You may use citations as references while presenting findings, but do not yet explain their relevance.
    • This part should signal what stands out, not why it happened.

  5. Avoid discussion

    • Don’t reiterate “definition” language as commentary.
    • Keep it factual: table + numbers + observational statements.
    • The idea: observations without interpretation.

Example results phrasing style (introductory narrative templates)

  • “The analysis shows that…”
  • “Table 2/Table 1 illustrates…”
  • “There was a significant increase…”
  • “If you observe…” (used to introduce what the table shows)

Key constraint: these phrases should introduce findings, not interpret them.

B. How to write the DISCUSSION section (D)

Core rule

  • The Discussion contains interpretation, discussion, and explanation of the results.
  • If results are quantitative (tables/numbers), the discussion must interpret what those numbers mean.

Include and follow these points

  1. Start with a summary

    • Briefly restate the most important findings from the results.

  2. Interpret the meaning

    • Explain what the results mean.
    • Connect findings to your hypothesis or research question (relationship between the data and the study aims).

  3. Compare with previous research

    • Use citations to show whether your findings:
      • align with prior studies/literature, or
      • differ from them
    • Explicitly connect your findings to the sources you previously cited/used.

  4. Discuss implications

    • Explain the significance/impact for:
      • Theory (confirm, revise, or contradict existing theory)
      • Practice (what could improve in current practice)
      • Future research (what future researchers should investigate)
      • Policy (mentioned as part of impact framing)

  5. Address limitations

    • Be transparent about weaknesses/constraints and what was not fully investigated.
    • Justify limitations (e.g., due to constraints/resources beyond control).
    • Purpose: transparency so others can build on what’s missing.

  6. Suggest future research issues/topics

    • Identify areas needing further study, often derived from your limitations/constraints.
    • Frame future work as extensions that can benefit future investigators and respondents.

Example discussion phrasing styles

  • “These results suggest that…” (moves directly into interpretation)
  • “Consistent with previous studies…” (align findings to cited work)
  • “Another possible explanation for this finding is that…” (interpretive reasoning grounded in results)
  • “This study highlights the importance of…” (emphasize significance/implications)

Example walkthrough included in the video (sample mini study)

Example study title

  • Effect of daily reading on students concentration levels

Sample RESULTS structure (crude bullet example)

  • Average concentration score before study: 65/100
  • Average concentration score after 2 weeks daily reading: 78
  • Improvement (noted as statistically significant based on statistical treatment)
  • Table 1: individual changes in concentration scores (supports the numeric results)

Sample DISCUSSION structure (narrative interpretation)

  • Interpretation of results:
    • Daily reading led to a notable statistically significant improvement.
    • Average score increased from 65 to 78, showing a positive effect.
  • Connection to prior research:
    • Findings “align with previous research” suggesting focused reading can improve attention span and information retention.
    • Cited example: Lee (published 2021) (as described in the subtitles).
  • Additional elements:
    • The discussion also includes implications/limitations/future research (as part of the broader discussion structure taught earlier).
  • Note: the example is described as crude, not an official manuscript.

End summary (video’s key takeaway)

  • Results: present what you found—data, tables, visuals, logical order, and key findings stated without interpretation.
  • Discussion: explain what it means—interpretation, link to research question/hypothesis, comparison with literature, implications, limitations, and future research.
  • The speaker advises presenting results as narrative with support from tables/numerical data (even though a bullet-form example was shown).

Speakers / sources featured

Speaker

  • Doc Ed Padama (host/presenter)

Sources mentioned (as examples)

  • Santos (2025) (referenced as an example for results phrasing/citation style)
  • Lee (2021) (referenced in the example discussion aligning findings with previous research)
  • Smith et al. (2021) (referenced in example future research / consistency language)
  • “Santos 2025” and “Smith and Company etl” appear as described in the subtitles (may contain transcription errors).

Original video