(manipulative experiment)
[The dependent variable “sexual response” has not been defined enough to be able to make this hypothesis testable or falsifiable. In addition, no comparison has been specified— greater sexual mating response as compared to what?]
If you are doing a systematic observation , your hypothesis presents a variable or set of variables that you predict are important for helping you characterize the system as a whole, or predict differences between components/areas of the system that help you explain how the system functions or changes over time.
(systematic observation) | (systematic observation) |
We hypothesize that the frequency and extent of algal blooms in Lake Mendota over the last 10 years causes fish kills and imposes a human health risk. [The variables “frequency and extent of algal blooms”, “fish kills” and “human health risk” have not been defined enough to be able to make this hypothesis testable or falsifiable. How do you measure algal blooms? Although implied, hypothesis should express predicted direction of expected results (e.g. higher frequency associated with greater kills). Note that cause and effect cannot be implied without a controlled, manipulative experiment.] | We hypothesize that increasing ( ) cell densities of algae ( ) in Lake Mendota over the last 10 years is correlated with 1. increased numbers of dead fish ( ) washed up on Madison beaches and 2. increased numbers of reported hospital/clinical visits ( .) following full-body exposure to lake water. |
Note that hypotheses/ predictions you develop in Biocore lab are much more specific than the general hypotheses that guide the research questions you encounter in scientific literature or in faculty research labs. That is because the research projects you do in Biocore are short-term, small(er) in scale or context specific, and therefore require greater specification to be testable within our class context.
Experimental Approach: Briefly gives the reader a general sense of the experiment, the type of data it will yield, and the kind of conclusions you expect to obtain from the data. Do not confuse the experimental approach with the experimental protocol . The experimental protocol consists of the detailed step-by-step procedures and techniques used during the experiment that are to be reported in the Methods and Materials section.
Where do you discuss Pilot Studies? Many times it is important to do pilot studies to help you get familiar with your experimental system or to improve your experimental design. If your pilot study influences your biological rationale or hypothesis, you need to describe it in your Introduction. If your pilot study simply informs the logistics or techniques, but does not influence your rationale, then the description of your pilot study belongs in the Materials and Methods section.
How will introductions be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Introduction, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.
Example introduction from systematic observation study.
Adapted from a paper by Will Klein 2009
Throughout history, humans have discovered and used chemicals derived from plant extracts as antimicrobial compounds for medicinal purposes. Although useful to humans, why would a plant create an antimicrobial defense that affects the growth of bacteria? [broad study question] As non-mobile organisms, plants have evolved mutually beneficial associations with beneficial microbes (Brooker et al. 2011) and a full arsenal of adaptations for defense against pathogenic microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi). Borchardt et al. (2008) did an antimicrobial screening of 339 plant species growing in Minnesota and Wisconsin, many of which are prairie plant species. The researchers tested aerial plant parts (leaves, stems, flowers) for growth inhibition of one, two or three common mammalian pathogens ( Escherichia coli , Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans) and found 109 species inhibited growth of at least one microorganism. Leave extracts of Silphium sp. , a species found in the Biocore Prairie, contains antimicrobial compounds that inhibit the growth of many types of Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria (Kowalski and Kedzia, 2007; Kowalski, 2008). [background information]
Plants may produce chemical defense in the form of antimicrobial compounds contained in stems, roots, leaves, bark, flowers or fruits. [BR: assumption] By investing energy to generate these antimicrobial compounds, the plant maximizes its likelihood to succeed in its particular ecological niche (i.e. the Biocore Prairie) and improves its biological fitness. [BR: assumption ] No studies howver have directly examined the effect of native Biocore prairie plant extracts on indigenous soil bacteria growth. [testable question]
Through preliminary investigations in the Biocore Prairie during summer 2010, we sought to find prairie plant species and extracts from different plant parts (roots, leaves or stems) that would inhibit soil bacteria-bacteria cultured from soil that the prairie plants are growing in. Although most soil bacteria are beneficial or do nothing to affect prairie plants, we reasoned that plant species coexisting in the same environment with particular soil microbes may have efficient defense mechanisms towards pathogenic “prairie soil” bacteria. [BR: assumption] Huechera richardsonii, Monarda fistulosa, and Euphorbia corollata are three species common to the Biocore Prairie. Although leaf tissue of these three species have all been shown to contain antimicrobial properties against S. aureus (Borchart et al. 2008), how extracts from these species influence growth of bacteria indigenous to the Biocore Prairie is not known. [knowledge gap] We believe these plant species will contain antimicrobial properties in leaves to protect the tissue from microbial leaf pathogens that also occur in the soil. [BR: assumption]
We hypothesized that leaf extracts of Huechera richardsonii, Monarda fistulosa, and Euphorbia corollata would exhibit antimicrobial properties on the bacteria found in their native environment. [hypothesis] Our approach was to grow soil bacteria collected from the Biocore Prairie on agar plates, and then expose bacteria to leaf extracts absorbed on filter paper discs and measure the extent to which the extracts inhibited bacterial growth. [approach]
*Note: If you are a Biocore 382 student—do not worry if you don’t understand the scientific content in these two examples. We will get there! These examples are provided to refer to as you progress through the curriculum
(adapted from a poster by Kari Esselman, John Kinzfogl, Amber Kugel, & Katie Luettgen, Spring 2003)
In the yeast ( Saccharomyces cerevisiae ) mating signal transduction pathway, interaction of the complete –mating factor with
the G-protein-coupled receptor on a MAT-a cell induces cell cycle arrest in the G1 phase, morphological changes or “shmooing,” and activation of genes involved in the mating process (Hoopes et al., 1998). In Saccharomyces cerevisiae , the amino acids Trp1, Lys7 and Gln 10, the central ß –turn conformation, and the amino acids near the C-terminus are directly involved in the binding of the a–mating factor to the receptor (Saskiawan et al., 2002). Altering the structure of the a –factor produces a conformational change in the receptor that is distinct from the conformational change of the normal a –factor, consequentially altering or even inhibiting the mating cascade of events (Bukusoglu and Kemmess. 1996). Elimination of Lys7 and Gln10 from the a –mating factor results in greater than a 100 fold decrease in mating signal transduction (Xue et al., 1996). [all background info]
It is unclear whether elimination of amino acid residues other than Lys7 and Gln10 in the a –mating factor also decrease the yeast mating response. [broad question] When introduced to MAT-a Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells, this sort of a – factor fragment could: 1.bind to the receptor site and induce the same change that the complete a –mating factor would; 2. bind to the receptor site but not induce the same changes as the complete a –factor, or 3.not bind to the receptor site at all. [BR: assumed biological mechanism] If the mating response to this fragment is different than normal (BR: assumption) , this would indicate which amino acid side groups are important in binding the receptor. An examination of Saccharomyces cerevisiae response to an a –mating factor fragment missing amino acids other than Lys7 and Gln10 would thus increase our understanding of the specificity of the a –factor receptor for its ligand. [BR: study goal/broader implication]
We hypothesized that the introduction of an a –mating factor fragment missing amino acids 7 through 13 to MAT-a Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells would cause more budding and less mating gene transcription and shmooing, as compared to the response to the complete a –factor. [hypothesis] We tested this hypothesis by adding this a –factor fragment to yeast cells transformed with a plasmid containing the FUS1 promoter attached to the lacZ reporter gene and recording the resulting morphological changes (budding and shmooing) and ß-galactosidase (ß -gal) activity. [approach]
(adapted from a paper by Matt Young, Fall 2003)
The diving response is a set of characteristic reactions following the immersion of certain body parts in water. It is observed primarily in diving mammals and ducks, but humans have also elicited the response, perhaps as a trait that was not selected against during their evolution (McCulloch et. al. 1995; Hlastala and Berger 2001). Gooden (1993) clearly demonstrated that the diving reflex prepares the animal’s body for the effects of long periods of apnea (breathing cessation) associated with being underwater. It does this by decreasing oxygen consumption and redirecting blood flow out of the peripheral structures and towards the central organs such as the heart and brain.
McCulloch et. al. (1995) showed that the diving response is initiated by the stimulation of the trigeminal (Vth cranial) nerve, a primary sensory supply from the face, including the nose and forehead areas. Stimulation of this nerve results in a complex series of sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve activations (Gooden 1994). Increased parasympathetic activity triggers the vagus nerve to inhibit the cardiac pacemaker, resulting in reduced heart rate (Andersson et. al. 2000). Limb vasoconstriction occurs in response to increased sympathetic nerve activity, which results in increased mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) (Andersson et. al. 2000; Gooden 1994). [all background info in previous paragraphs]
Along with submersion in water, apnea is believed to be a major component in eliciting a proper diving response. It is still not clear, however, how necessary apnea is for the induction of the diving response or the mechanism for this induction (Gooden 1994). [broad question] Campbell et. al. (1969) argued that apnea, whether voluntary or involuntary, is essential for a diving response to occur, while Andersson et. al. (2000) found that facial immersion with eupnea resulted in reduced, but noticeable, diving responses. [background info]
It is believed that apnea stimulates chemoreceptors and thoracic stretch receptors in order to exert its effects. The thoracic stretch receptors are sensitive to movements in the airways, while chemoreceptors are sensitive to the oxygen lack associated with breath-holding. Increased firing of these two receptors due to their respective stimuli is believed to be the method by which apnea influences the diving response, but the exact pathway this firing takes to exert such effects remains unclear. It may either directly affect the cardiovascular centers, or indirectly affect the cardiovascular system via the medulla (Gooden 1994). [background info which identifies knowledge gap]
Does apnea significantly increase the human diving response during facial submersion? [testable question] It seems plausible that simultaneous activation of the trigeminal nerve, thoracic stretch receptors, and arterial chemorecptors would produce a more pronounced cardiovascular diving response. (BR: biological assumption) The goal of this experiment is to examine whether the diving response in eupneic (normal breathing) situations is significantly different than that observed during apneic situations. [BR: study goal] We will focus on heart rate and blood pressure changes, two of the many responses associated with the diving response. If heart rate and blood pressure changes during apneic submersion are significantly greater than those observed during eupneic submersions, this would indicate that simultaneous stimulation of the trigeminal nerve, thoracic stretch receptors, and chemoreceptors produces a greater cardiovascular response than stimulation of the trigeminal nerve alone. [BR: assumed mechanism]
We hypothesized that diving responses in human participants would be more pronounced in those experiencing apnea during immersion compared to those experiencing eupnea. More specifically, we expected non-breathing participants’ heart rates to decrease and blood pressures to increase significantly more than breathing participants in response to facial immersion in cold water. [hypothesis]
We tested this hypothesis by having 12 human subjects immerse their foreheads, noses, and cheekbones in cold water. We used a paired analysis to determine whether the change in heart rate and blood pressure from just prior to immersion to the end of immersion was different during apneic as compared to eupneic submersions. [approach]
This section is often the easiest to write since it is simply a clear explanation of the specific procedures, techniques , and materials you used . In some cases ( e.g. , the projects carried out in the Biocore Prairie), it is necessary to include procedures carried out by previous classes as well. Provide enough details that a knowledgeable reader ( e.g ., a Biocore peer who is not enrolled in lab) could replicate the experiment. This will also allow him/her to evaluate whether to trust your findings. In the case of field investigations, include a description of the type of community and the location of the site studied.
Mathematical manipulations or statistical analyses applied to the data should be explained under a subheading, but keep these brief. Although calculations are not normally included in a scientific paper, we sometimes ask you to include examples to check whether you are doing them correctly. If this is the case, put them in an appendix at the end of the paper.
Focus on essentials that affect the results . For example, in a genetics experiment with flies, it is important to state whether the females used for the crosses were virgins; it is not necessary to list the type of food or anesthetic used. However, these details would be important if your experiment was testing how different diets affected fruit fly activity level or some other physiological parameter. In cases where detailed protocols are given in the lab manual, merely cite the appropriate chapter of the lab manual, note any details relevant to the experiment but not specified in the protocol ( e.g. , identify the particular strain of organism you and your teammates used when several were available), and describe any manipulations you made that are not outlined in the manual. Include only what is vital for the reader’s understanding of how the results were obtained. (E.g., Drawing white poker chips out of a 1 quart Babcock Vanilla flavored ice cream container to get two numbers to pace out and place quadrats is not as important as the fact that quadrat placement was random.) If you are having trouble deciding what to put in and what to leave out, consult with your TA, peers, or other instructional staff for guidance before handing in your final paper.
Reporting final volumes. E.g., ‘We added 5 ml of NaCl solution to the reaction mixture.’ | Reporting final concentrations. E.g., ‘The final reaction mixture contained 2 mM of NaCl.’ |
(Excerpt adapted from a paper by Beth Theusch, Biocore 384, Spring 2003: Inorganic phosphate competitively inhibits alkaline phosphatase-catalyzed hydrolysis of p-nitrophenylphophate )
Pilot Study*
A pilot study using various Pi concentrations but a constant substrate concentration close to the Km value was conducted in order to determine a Na2HPO4 concentration that has a moderate effect on initial reaction velocity to use in the inhibitor kinetics study. We tested a range of concentrations between 2.5 uM and 200 uM Na2HPO4 in tubes containing 0.05 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.6, 0.05 mM pNPP (the approximate Km value), and 4 ug/ml bovine intestinal alkaline phosphatase in a total volume of 5 ml. There was a control with no Na2HPO4 added and a blank with no enzyme added.
Experimental Protocol
The inhibitor kinetics study involved two sets of replicated reactions over a 0-0.5 mM range of pNPP substrate concentrations. One set of reactions was conducted in the absence of inhibitor and used as a control. The other set of reactions had a uniform concentration of Pi inhibitor, which was determined to be 0.05 mM from the pilot study, added to each tube. All tubes had 0.05 M Tris pH 8.6, 4 ug/ml alkaline phosphatase, and the appropriate amount of distilled water to bring the total volume of each tube to 5 ml. In each case, there was a control with no substrate added and a blank with no enzyme added. The pH of the Na2HPO4 salt solution was checked to ensure that the pH was approximately the same in the uninhibited and the inhibited reactions. Four replicates were performed for both the inhibited reaction and non-inhibited reaction.
For a complete protocol of the non-inhibited experiment, refer to “Enzyme Catalysis” in the Biocore Cellular Biology Lab Manual (Becker, Metzenberg, Dehring, 2003). For the inhibitor kinetics study, the product concentrations were used to calculate the initial reaction velocities at each substrate concentration in the presence and absence of inhibitor. Michaelis-Menten curves and Lineweaver-Burk plots were then generated to compare the values of Km and Vmax for the inhibited and uninhibited reactions. Ki was determined using the relationship that the inhibited Km = (1 + [inhibitor] / Ki) times the uninhibited Km.
Statistical Analysis
We performed an independent sample T-test to determine whether the differences between the average Km and Vmax values between the inhibited and uninhibited reactions were statistically significant.
*Note: Not all papers require the inclusion of pilot studies in the Methods section. Discuss this with your instructors.
How will methods/materials be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Methods & Materials, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.
The Results section is a logically organized presentation of your observational and numeric data . This is an opportunity to emphasize points or trends that you will be focusing on in your discussion. In many cases the organization and subheadings of this section should be consistent with those of the Methods and Materials section.
Before you start writing, make sure you have discussed the data and have shared your plan for analysis with your group members. Your group should share a common data set and, therefore, should be working with the same mean, standard deviation, and other descriptive statistics. As long as all group members have the same raw data set, you may choose to display the data differently.
There are usually two parts to this section:
Text : The key purpose of the text in the results section is to point out and emphasize patterns in your data. You may choose to illustrate some of these patterns, especially those that pertain to your hypothesis, in figures or tables. However, each figure and table needs accompanying text to point out the obvious—or sometimes the not so obvious.
Refer your reader to “Table 1” or “Figure 1” as you explicitly identify relationships, patterns, or general trends that you see in the data. Remember that relationships that are obvious to you may not be obvious to someone who has not carried out the experiment.
The Results section should not be controversial since you are merely reporting findings, not saying what you think they mean. Avoid judging your data as “good” or “bad.” Data are facts and facts simply are what they are. Remember: you are not graded on whether your experiment “worked” or on your results; you are graded on how you handle them . Always report what you saw , not what you think you should have seen.
See the following excerpt from a good Results section describing data from a systematic study.
Example of a Good Results Section from a Systematic Observation Study
(excerpted from a Biocore 382 paper by Kim Treml, Fall 2003)
Water Quality
Water quality testing revealed a mean pH of 6.67 +/-0.07 pH units (Table 1). Mean dissolved oxygen and dissolved carbon dioxide were 3.4 +/- 0.4ppm and 55 +/-3ppm respectively. Also, the total phosphorus was measured as 0.51 +/-0.5mg.L and conductivity, measured in microsiemens, was 1,063 +/-17μs. All means were computed with n=45. Both conductivity and phosphorus fall far out of range of optimal water quality levels for a healthy aquatic ecosystem (Table 1). The measured phosphorus level is an order of magnitude larger than what is recommended by the EPA. Conductivity is twice as high as the ideal level in a freshwater ecosystem. [RESULTS TEXT]
Table 1. Water quality data obtained from the University Bay marsh in 2003. Each value represents the mean of 45 trials. The error margin is + or – 1 standard error. Optimal data ranges for a healthy aquatic ecosystem are shown for comparison. [TABLE LEGEND]
pH | 6.57 +/- 0.07 | 6.9 – 7.1 |
Conductivity (μs) | 1,063 +/ 17 | 150 – 500 |
Dissolved O2 (ppm) | 3.4 +/ 0.4 | 5 – 6 |
Dissolved CO2 (ppm) | 55 +/ 3 | > 20 |
Phosphorus (mg/L) | 0.51 +/ 0.04 | 0.005 – 0.05 |
Macroinvertebrate Diversity
Macroinvertebrate species in the University Bay marsh were catalogued and presence or absence of each species was noted. Figure 3* depicts the calculated frequency of each species per 500mL. The species are approximately organized on the chart from left to right with increasing pollution tolerance as described on North Carolina State University’s water quality webpage (2003). The highest frequency in both 2002 and 2003 exists among organisms around the mid-range of pollution tolerance. Orb snails, scuds, backswimmers, copepods, seed and clam shrimp, nematodes and tubifex worms were present in over half of our samples in either 2002 or 2003. Species indicative of very high water quality or very low water quality were less frequent compared to species indicative of the mid range. Nonetheless, the data show an increase in the variety of species present from 18 species in 2002 to 26 in 2003. [RESULTS TEXT]
* Figure 3 not shown in this Writing Manual
Tables and figures are key elements of a scientific paper.
Why use tables and figures? First, they offer a concise way to present a large amount of information. Second, they carry the bulk of the experimental evidence needed to support your conclusions. Third, they offer the reader a chance to assess your data and determine whether or not your conclusions are valid. Finally, the values in them can be used by other scientists who wish to build on your work. Usually, summarized (e.g., averages and measures of variation) rather than raw data are included in a paper. Always make it clear whether you are presenting actual data or averages. (In some cases we will ask you to include raw data as an appendix.) Please refer to the Biocore Statistics Primer for directions on producing figures in Excel.
Each table or figure should be referred to in the text of your paper at least once. If you have nothing to note about a particular table or figure, leave it out. Identify and number tables or figures according to the order they appear in the text (Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.). This way the reader will know exactly what data you are discussing.
Tables and figures should be neat, logically organized, and informative. If properly prepared, they can stand independently of the paper. Always remember that readers are not familiar with your data. A table or figure that seems self-explanatory to you may not seem so to a reader.
Here are some rules for presentation of graphs and tables:
Drawing a diagram or presenting a photomicrograph: Drawn diagrams or photographs taken from a microscope and their legends should contain enough information that a reader can understand (as near as possible) what you actually observed and the conditions surrounding the observation. Diagrams must be large enough to show significant details of what you observed. In practice, this generally means that each diagram should cover at least a quarter of an 8.5×11” page . Indicate the type of microscopy used and the total magnification in your legend. Include a scale on your drawing. Define the experimental conditions and include notes on the process of your investigation. See Figures A-7, A-13, and A-14 in the World of the Cell’s “Principles & Techniques of Microscopy” for examples of good figure legends.
(excerpted and adapted from a presentation by Jennifer Rowland, Beth Rollmann, Simona Rosu, and Christopher Luty, Biocore 384, Spring 2003; Gramicidin Decreases CO2 Consumption in Elodea)
Figure 2: Change in dissolved CO2 levels in water surrounding six Elodea sprigs (6 cm in length) in 75 ml culture tubes over 100 minutes of light exposure. Dissolved gramicidin concentrations ranged from 0 to 0.8 µM. Each data point represents the mean of N=11-15 culture tubes for each gramicidin concentration plus/minus one standard error.
view this figure as a pdf
(adapted from Jenna Voegele paper on water quality in Willow Creek, Biocore 382, Fall 2004)
Table 1. Mean values of water chemistry tests from upstream and downstream sampling locations during a three day study period, Sept 14-16, 2004. Variation is shown as ± 1 SE next to each mean value, followed by sample size (in parentheses) in which varied for each test and sampling location. Note the smaller sample size for the nitrate-N test.
Sampling Location
| ||
Turbidity (NTU) | 32.2 ± 9.7 (16) | 23.6 ± 5.9 (13) |
PH | 6.99 ± 0.1 (16) | 6.97 ± 0.12 (14) |
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%) | 77.1 ± 1.7 (32) | 81.5 ± 1.9 (26) |
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L) | 2.6 ± 0.5 (20) | 3.3 ± 0.7 (18) |
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) | 0.44 ± 0.09 (15) | 0.58 ± 0.12 (14) |
Nitrate-N (mg/L) | 8.6 ± 1.4 (4) | 11.0 ± 0.7 (4) |
Water Temperature (°C) | 20.8 ± 0.3 (17) | 20.6 ± 0.3 (14) |
Fecal Coliform (colonies/100ml water) | 414 ± 185 (29) | 684 ± 201 (24) |
Writing a figure legend for a drawing or micrograph:
If you are including an image (drawing or photomicrograph) in your paper, highlight attributes of the image that are important for your paper and to your reader. If the reason for including the image is to highlight anatomy, you may want to label structures and include a description of movement or other important observations in the figure legend. When writing a figure legend to accompany a photo or drawing, include enough information so that a reader can understand (as near as possible) what you actually observed and the conditions surrounding the observation. This means that you should indicate the type of microscopy used (phase contrast, bright field, fluorescence, etc.) and any notes regarding the preparation (e.g., mounted in ProtoSlow, water or saliva, with coverslip, types of stains used, etc.). Also indicate the total magnification in your legend. Diagrams must be large enough to show significant details of what you observed. It is important to include a scale on your drawing.
Click on the three purple icons in the diagram below for more information about each element.
Figure 1.1 Micrograph of the protozoan Pelomyxa carolinensis viewed under phase contrast microscopy, magnification 100X. The specimen is mounted in ProtoSlow and coverslip to reduce its movement. Plasmagel streams readily into pseudopodia (seen at the bottom right of the photo) allowing the amoeba to slowly crawl across the field of view.
In the figure descripton above, the writer has indicated the type of microscopy (phase contrast microscopy, magnification 100X) and the total magnification (100X).
How will results (including text & figures/tables) be evaluated? To see our expectations for your Results, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.
This is where you interpret your results for the reader . It is the most important part of your paper and often one of the most difficult to write. The discussion section is NOT a restatement of your results, but rather where you provide your insight on the investigation through logical analysis. Key elements of your discussion section include:
The organization of your discussion section is not fixed but rather it is driven by the reliability of the data you collect. The discussion should complement the logic set up with your biological rationale in the Introduction.
The following is not an appropriate discussion section: “Our data supported the hypothesis. The results were what we expected (see Results section).” Instead, state specifically what you observed in your data, and the conclusions you feel confident you can make based on the evidence you gathered. The Discussion should formulate and support a logical argument , leading the reader through the specific conclusions drawn from the data to their more general implications beyond the experiment.
Broad Study Question
What is the broad question that your research is trying to address? State your question clearly in the opening paragraph.
Support or Reject Hypothesis :
Interpreting Data : If you feel that your protocol allowed you to test your hypothesis,
Generating New Knowledge
Describe how your experiment contributes to the knowledge gap you identified in your introduction. Cite similar, contrary and/or supportive literature.
Evaluate Confidence in Experimental Design and Data Reliability/Quality
New Questions and Future Studies : Science is built on an iterative cycle of questions, experiments, results and conclusions. Often it is appropriate to suggest the next step in the investigation. Be sure to include the reasoning that leads to your insights . Your experiment will likely provide many opportunities to ask new questions and suggest future studies.
Final Conclusion : End your paper strongly with a clear, brief conclusion that relates directly to the question, hypothesis, or knowledge gap you stated in the Introduction.
If you get stuck : The hard work of making meaning of data will be easier if you have a clear idea of what it was that you set out to do in the first place. Re-read your question and biological rationale. Do your results allow you to answer the question you posed in light of your biological rationale? A second reading of your BR after examining your data will often solve much of the confusion you may be experiencing. Be sure to discuss your results thoroughly with your research team. They may have some insight, intriguing literature for comparison, or thoughts about the data that could benefit your interpretation.
Other things you can do:
How will discussions be evaluated ? To see our expectations for your Discussion, see the Biocore Research Paper Rubric in this Writing Manual.
Adapted from a paper by Jeremiah Wilke, Biocore 382, Fall 2003 Practice Paper entitled “Queen Anne’s Lace ( Daucus carota ) Species Frequency Suggests Rototilling as Most Effective method for Control of Invasive Weeds in Prairie Restoration Projects
The results suggest that rototilling is the most effective method as mulching and mowing yielded frequency values approximately 5 fold greater. The greater effectiveness of rototilling over the other methods coincides with previous knowledge of Queen Anne’s lace as it is known to favor habitats in no-till fields (Rose and Sheaffer, 2003) and re-sprout stems even after being cut (Biocore 382, class 2001, unpublished data) . (setting up logical argument: referring back to biological rationale and comparing findings with the literature) . The frequency means suggest mowing to be slightly more effective than mulching; however, the distribution of the frequencies indicates little difference as the methods share common values. (Data interpretation- part of logical argument; Add re-statement of hypothesis and clearly state whether it was supported or rejected based on data interpretation)
Through rototilling seems to be the most efficacious for Queen Anne’s lace, several factors prevent us from making a definitive conclusion, most notably a small sample size. (Evaluating the validity and reliability of data) Frequency calculations can suggest patterns in the treatment, but they give no sense of the species density (number of a give species per quadrat). Examinations of the species frequency of Queen Anne’s lace in a control would also allow us to be more conclusive by gaining a sense of the improvement the methods made over untreated plots. (evaluating experimental design) Beyond our inability to decisively say which treatment is the most effective for Queen Anne’s lace, further work by the University of Wisconsin-Madison Biocore class of 2001 suggests we cannot generalize to other non-native species (Batzli, 2003). In their research, none of the methods demonstrated an appreciably greater capacity for weed control when tested on a variety of species. (discussion of other data makes our interpretation and argument more convincing) Species density calculations, measurements against a control, and the effectiveness of treatments on the other invasive plants therefore all necessitate future research. Mixing treatments has also been proposed (Batzli, 2003), while engineering novel methods deserves further study. (next steps)
(Final conclusion and brief discussion of implications of this research would help here)
Adapted from a poster by Beth Gausden, Katie Gielissen, Emily Gurnee, Jordan Mollet, and Carley Zeal, Biocore 384, Spring 2006
Addition of colchicines to MATa S. cerevisiae in vivo does not inhibit budding in the absence of α-factor but reduces shmooing and β-gal activity in response to α-factor
The results in Fig. 2 do not support our hypothesis (rejection of original hypothesis) that yeast exposed to colchicine in the absence of α-factor show a drastic decline in the incidence of budding as compared to controls. Our original hypothesis was based on the assumption that inhibition of mitotic division would prevent budding. (clear statement of key assumption in biological rationale) Although nuclear division is mediated by microtubules, pinching action and subsequent cytokinesis (budding) is controlled by actin filaments1. The tubulin-colchicine complex inhibits karygomy; however, bud formation can occur independently of nuclear division.1 Budding was still observed microscopically after three hours of incubation with colchicine (Fig. 2)- approximately two generations. These results indicate that bud formation was not inhibited by colchicine; (summary of how results do not support biological assumption) however, later generations incubated in colchicine may show complete cessation of budding as a result of aneuploidy, an irregular number of chromosomes.1 This occurs when a yeast cell undergoes successful cytokinesis but unsuccessful karyogamy; if this process is continuous or prolonged, cells will be unable to bud.
The results in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 do not support our hypothesis that colchicine does not affect shmooing or the transcription of mating genes. We expected no change in the incidence of mating gene transcription as reported by the β-gal assay and percent of shmooing yeast in the yeast treated with colchicine compared to untreated yeast. The β-gal assay, Fig. 1, indicates a large decrease occurred in the transcription of mating genes in the presence of colchicine. Similarly, we observed a lower percentage of shmooing cells in the presence of colchicine. If nuclear division were inhibited by colchicine, then the portion of cells experiencing aneuploidy would be unable to respond to α-factor by shmooing or transcribing mating genes.
Our results suggest that colchicine does not inhibit bud formation (in the absence of α-factor) after 3 hours. We also observed decreased shmooing as well as β-galactosidase activity in yeast cells treated with colchicine and α-factor. The consistency of our results provides reasonable confidence in the methods. In future studies, longer incubation times, differing concentrations of colchicine, and chromosome and microtubule staining could be used to investigate the mechanism more thoroughly.
Adapted from a paper by Beth Theusch, Biocore 384, Spring 2003 Inorganic Phosphate Competitively Inhibits Alkaline Phosphatase-Catalyzed Hydrolysis of p-Nitrophenylphosphate
We hypothesized that inorganic phosphate (Pi) would act as a competitive inhibitor of the alkaline phosphatase-catalyzed pNPP hydrolysis reaction. Our data support this hypothesis. (re-statement of hypothesis and whether it was supported or rejected) As expected, we found that addition of inorganic phosphate increased the Km of the alkaline phosphatase-catalyzed pNPP hydrolysis reaction while the Vmax remained relatively unchanged. (setting up logical argument) After the addition of a concentration of Pi inhibitor approximately equal to the uninhibited Km substrate concentration, the apparent Km became 6-7 times as large (from 0.038 mM to 0.253 mM) as the uninhibited Km. Therefore, pNPP substrate molecules had to be almost 7 times as numerous as inhibitor molecules to access alkaline phosphatase’s active site and produce product equivalent to an initial uninhibited reaction velocity of 1/2 Vmax. These data indicate that Pi is quite an effective competitive inhibitor. One reason for its effectiveness as an inhibitor could be that the molecular weight (MW) of inorganic phosphate is about 96 g/mol, while the MW of pNPP, with its bulky nitrophenyl group, is almost 217 g/mol. Temperature is a measure of average molecular kinetic energy and is proportional to mv2. This means that lighter molecules have to move faster than heavy ones at 37oC in order to have the same kinetic energy as the large molecules. Molecules that move faster have more collisions, so it is likely that each Pi molecule had a greater chance of colliding with the alkaline phosphatase (AP) active site than did each pNPP substrate molecule during our experiment. (constructing new knowledge: references would help a lot here to show that the differences in molecular weight mentioned could significantly change kinetic energy) In addition, AP may have had a greater affinity for Pi than it did for the pNPP substrate, since alkaline phosphatases have a high affinity for inorganic phosphate (McComb et al ., 1979). The bulky phenyl group on pNPP may have sterically hindered the hydrolysis reaction more than the hydrogen on Pi, depending on the specific geometry of the active site. As we mentioned previously, AP generally hydrolyzes Pi at a slower rate than it hydrolyzes phosphomonoesters (Schwartz, 1963), and so it may be that Pi occupies the AP active site longer per hydrolysis and thus excludes available pNPP from subsequently binding. (constructing new knowledge: referring back to biological rationale and comparing findings with the literature)
At first glance, it might appear that some of the increase in apparent Km could be attributed to a slight change in pH, since the Km value is pH dependent. Dibasic Pi can act as a base by adding a proton and becoming h1PO4- and as an acid by losing a proton and forming PO43-, but phosphate is predominantly the dianion at a pH of 8.6. Since the pH of the 0.05 mM Na2HPO4 salt solution was 7.7, which is close to the targeted value of 8.6, it is a reasonable to assume that the buffer counteracted any fluctuations in pH and essentially kept the pH constant. (evaluating experimental design)
Although the Vmax did not change dramatically between uninhibited and inhibited reactions, there was some difference between the uninhibited value of 0.056 umol/min and the inhibited value of 0.070 umol/min. Since Vmax did not decrease, it was clear that Pi did not act as a noncompetitive inhibitor. Since Vmax increases in the presence of an activator, it is possible that slight changes in ionic strength resulting from the addition of the salt could have activated AP somewhat. However, previous studies at a pH of 10 have shown that the activities of mammalian alkaline phosphatases are either unaffected or diminished by an increase in ionic strength. Specifically, calf intestinal AP experienced no change in activity following the addition of 1M NaCl, a much higher concentration than the Na+ that we introduced in our experiment. In other systems, NaCl addition at a pH of 9.0, close to the 8.6 we used in our experiment, had little effect on maximum velocity and actually inhibited it at low substrate concentrations (McComb et al ., 1979). Since other variables in the experiment were held constant, the differences in Vmax values could simply be due to experimental error. (evaluating data reliability & experimental design)
The Ki value of 8.78 uM obtained from this study was comparable to but slightly greater than literature values for the Ki of E. coli AP. The values of 1 uM (O’Brien and Herschlag, 2001) and 0.6 uM (McComb et al ., 1979) for Pi inhibition of E. coli AP were both obtained at a pH of 8.0 and temperature of 25oC, while we used a pH of 8.6, a temperature of 37oC, and bovine intestinal AP in our study. Just like Km values, Ki values are pH dependent. It is generally recognized that competitive inhibitors of AP are more effective at lower pHs (McComb et al ., 1979). The pH difference alone could probably explain why our Ki was slightly larger and our inhibitor was slightly less effective than in the E. coli studies. In addition, bovine intestinal AP has a structure that is somewhat different from E. coli AP, so it is reasonable that the kinetics of the two enzymes could differ slightly. Some studies in rats have shown that only 1/10 as much Pi is needed to inhibit intestinal AP as compared to the amount that is needed to inhibit AP in other rat tissues (McComb et al ., 1979). (evaluating data reliability & experimental design) Perhaps there are lower Pi concentrations in intestinal cells as compared to cells in other tissues. It would be interesting to see if this is true for bovine and other mammalian AP as well. (New questions/Future Studies)
The inhibition of AP by Pi, the product of AP catalyzed hydrolysis reactions, is a substrate-level regulation mechanism (Becker, Kleinsmith, and Hardin, 2003). This allows the AP enzyme to be responsive to product concentrations, so it is not always functioning at its maximum rate. It is not in the best interest of the cell to convert all phosphomonoesters into Pi and an alcohol at once, and the competitive inhibition by Pi helps to prevent this. This is precisely why initial reaction velocities are used when studying enzyme kinetics; if products are allowed to accumulate, they are likely to have an inhibitory effect on the enzyme. (implications of results, referring back to biological rationale)
Overall, the results of this study indicate that Pi is indeed a competitive inhibitor of bovine intestinal AP, as we had hypothesized. Specifically, we found that the Km value increased from 0.038 mM to 0.253 mM while Vmax remained relatively constant. We also found that our Ki value of 8.78 uM was reasonably similar to that reported previously for this particular enzyme and inhibitor. (final conclusion)
List all works cited in the text – and no others – alphabetically in the References section at the end of your paper. The specific format used for references varies depending on each journal’s conventions, web-site format and the type of source to which you are referring. We would like you to use the format demonstrated below which follows the Name-Year system . Each reference should include the names of all the authors, the date the article or book was published and/or the date the website was accessed and its title. Regardless of the exact format used, make sure that you are consistent!
Format as follows :
Author(s). year of publication. Title of the article (with only the first word capitalized). title of journal plus volume (issue): Inclusive page numbers.
One author example
Vitousek, P.M. 1994. Beyond global warming: ecology and global change. Ecology 75: 1861-1876.
Multiple author example
Post, W.M., Emanuel, W.R., Zinke, P.J., and Stangenberger, A.G. 1982. Soil carbon pools and world life zones. Nature 298: 156-159.
Internet Sources
A full discussion of number and types of internet resources is beyond the scope of this manual.
However, the following is a general guide for most articles that are published on the internet. As with all resources, especially those found on the internet, you must be wary of the source and its validity. If it doesn’t have an author or publication/ posting date BEWARE!
Format as follows :
Author(s). Year of publication. Title of the work. Title of the complete work or website or on-line journal plus volume (issue) if available/ applicable. Website URL or address (except for online journal or personal email). Date you accessed the web page.
Carbon, J.J. Physiology data. Personal email (7 July 2010).
Listserv or RSS feed newslist:
Blystone, R.V. 1994. Setting up a digital classroom and other stuff. [email protected] (accessed May 10, 1996).
World Wide Web: Basic form is: Author. Date. Title. URL (Access date)
Waterman, M., Stanley, E., Soderberg, P., and Jungck, J.R. 1999 Kingdoms entangled: molecules, malaria, and maise. BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium. http://bioquest.org/case.html (accessed April 12, 2012)
Macreal, H. 2001. Large Fish, Small Pond. http://www.bigfish.org/articles (accessed April 20, 2001)
Splice, G. 2000. Mutations are the Ultimate form of Variation. University Press Weekly vol 22. Electric Library. http://www.elibrary.com/ (accessed October 17, 2011).
*Note: Do not write out a website address (URL) as a parenthetic citation within the text of your paper—instead include the author and year of publication (e.g. Macreal 2001), just as you do with all other publications. Whenever possible, list the author. If you can’t find an author, list the organization that provided the information. If you can’t find the name of the organization, question the quality of your source.
Biocore Lab Manual
You will be citing one of your Biocore lab manuals in many of your research papers. To do this, look at the lab manual chapter to find the author(s) you wish to cite and the example format below. NOTE: This is an example for the Biocore Prairie chapter of the Biocore 382 lab manual.
Book Citations
Format as follows:
First author’s last name, First initials, subsequent authors’ name separated by commas, year of publication, title of book (italicized, with only the first word capitalized), edition number (if it is not the first edition), the publisher, the city of publication, and the state (omit the state for well known cities like New York).
Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Purves, W.K., Sadava, D., Orians, G.H., and Heller, H.C. 2001. Life, the science of biology, 6th ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
Chapter in a Book
Naes, A. 1986. Intrinsic value: will the defenders of nature please rise? In Soulé, M.E., editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 504-515.
Process of Science Companion: Science Communication Copyright © 2017 by University of Wisconsin-Madison Biology Core Curriculum (Biocore) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
Published on August 7, 2022 by Courtney Gahan . Revised on August 15, 2023.
A research paper outline is a useful tool to aid in the writing process , providing a structure to follow with all information to be included in the paper clearly organized.
A quality outline can make writing your research paper more efficient by helping to:
A research paper outline can also give your teacher an early idea of the final product.
Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes
Research paper outline example, how to write a research paper outline, formatting your research paper outline, language in research paper outlines.
The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:
Follow these steps to start your research paper outline:
There are three different kinds of research paper outline: alphanumeric, full-sentence and decimal outlines. The differences relate to formatting and style of writing.
An alphanumeric outline is most commonly used. It uses Roman numerals, capitalized letters, arabic numerals, lowercase letters to organize the flow of information. Text is written with short notes rather than full sentences.
Essentially the same as the alphanumeric outline, but with the text written in full sentences rather than short points.
A decimal outline is similar in format to the alphanumeric outline, but with a different numbering system: 1, 1.1, 1.2, etc. Text is written as short notes rather than full sentences.
To write an effective research paper outline, it is important to pay attention to language. This is especially important if it is one you will show to your teacher or be assessed on.
There are four main considerations: parallelism, coordination, subordination and division.
Parallel structure or parallelism is the repetition of a particular grammatical form within a sentence, or in this case, between points and sub-points. This simply means that if the first point is a verb , the sub-point should also be a verb.
Your chosen subheadings should hold the same significance as each other, as should all first sub-points, secondary sub-points, and so on.
Subordination refers to the separation of general points from specific. Your main headings should be quite general, and each level of sub-point should become more specific.
Division: break information into sub-points.
Your headings should be divided into two or more subsections. There is no limit to how many subsections you can include under each heading, but keep in mind that the information will be structured into a paragraph during the writing stage, so you should not go overboard with the number of sub-points.
Ready to start writing or looking for guidance on a different step in the process? Read our step-by-step guide on how to write a research paper .
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
Gahan, C. (2023, August 15). How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example. Scribbr. Retrieved August 12, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/outline/
Other students also liked, research paper format | apa, mla, & chicago templates, writing a research paper introduction | step-by-step guide, writing a research paper conclusion | step-by-step guide, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".
I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”
The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a re-statement of your research problem, but a synthesis of key points derived from the findings of your study and, if applicable based on your analysis, explain new areas for future research. For most college-level research papers, two or three well-developed paragraphs is sufficient for a conclusion, although in some cases, more paragraphs may be required in describing the key findings and highlighting their significance.
Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Conclusions. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University.
A well-written conclusion provides important opportunities to demonstrate to the reader your understanding of the research problem. These include:
Bunton, David. “The Structure of PhD Conclusion Chapters.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4 (July 2005): 207–224; Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Conclusion. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; Conclusions. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8.
I. General Rules
The general function of your paper's conclusion is to restate the main argument . It reminds the reader of your main argument(s) strengths and reiterates the most important evidence supporting those argument(s). Do this by clearly summarizing the context, background, and the necessity of examining the research problem in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found in the literature. However, make sure that your conclusion is not simply a repetitive summary of the findings. This reduces the impact of the argument(s) you have developed in your paper.
When writing the conclusion to your paper, follow these general rules:
Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is presented well:
The conclusion also provides a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with all the information about the topic . Depending on the discipline you are writing in, the concluding paragraph may contain your reflections on the evidence presented. However, the nature of being introspective about the research you have conducted will depend on the topic and whether your professor wants you to express your observations in this way. If asked to think introspectively about the topic, do not delve into idle speculation. Being introspective means looking within yourself as an author to try and understand an issue more deeply, not to guess at possible outcomes or make up scenarios not supported by the evidence.
II. Developing a Compelling Conclusion
Although an effective conclusion needs to be clear and succinct, it does not need to be written passively or lack a compelling narrative. Strategies to help you move beyond merely summarizing the key points of your research paper may include any of the following:
III. Problems to Avoid
Failure to be concise Your conclusion section should be concise and to the point. Conclusions that are too lengthy often have unnecessary information in them. The conclusion is not the place for details about your methodology or results. Although you should give a summary of what was learned from your research, this summary should be relatively brief, since the emphasis in the conclusion is on the implications, evaluations, insights, and other forms of analysis that you make. Strategies for writing concisely can be found here .
Failure to comment on larger, more significant issues In the introduction, your task was to move from the general [topic studied within the field of study] to the specific [the research problem]. However, in the conclusion, your task is to move the discussion from specific [your research problem] back to a general discussion framed around the implications and significance of your findings [i.e., how your research contributes new understanding or fills an important gap in the literature]. In short, the conclusion is where you should place your research within a larger context [visualize the structure of your paper as an hourglass--start with a broad introduction and review of the literature, move to the specific method of analysis and the discussion, conclude with a broad summary of the study's implications and significance].
Failure to reveal problems and negative results Negative aspects of the research process should never be ignored. These are problems, deficiencies, or challenges encountered during your study. They should be summarized as a way of qualifying your overall conclusions. If you encountered negative or unintended results [i.e., findings that are validated outside the research context in which they were generated], you must report them in the results section and discuss their implications in the discussion section of your paper. In the conclusion, use negative or surprising results as an opportunity to explain their possible significance and/or how they may form the basis for future research.
Failure to provide a clear summary of what was learned In order to discuss how your research fits within your field of study [and possibly the world at large], you need to summarize briefly and succinctly how it contributes to new knowledge or a new understanding about the research problem. This element of your conclusion may be only a few sentences long, but it often represents the key takeaway for your reader.
Failure to match the objectives of your research Often research objectives in the social and behavioral sciences change while the research is being carried out due to unforeseen factors or unanticipated variables. This is not a problem unless you forget to go back and refine the original objectives in your introduction. As these changes emerge they must be documented so that they accurately reflect what you were trying to accomplish in your research [not what you thought you might accomplish when you began].
Resist the urge to apologize If you've immersed yourself in studying the research problem, you presumably should know a good deal about it [perhaps even more than your professor!]. Nevertheless, by the time you have finished writing, you may be having some doubts about what you have produced. Repress those doubts! Don't undermine your authority as a researcher by saying something like, "This is just one approach to examining this problem; there may be other, much better approaches that...." The overall tone of your conclusion should convey confidence to the reader concerning the validity and realiability of your research.
Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8; Concluding Paragraphs. College Writing Center at Meramec. St. Louis Community College; Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Conclusions. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Freedman, Leora and Jerry Plotnick. Introductions and Conclusions. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Leibensperger, Summer. Draft Your Conclusion. Academic Center, the University of Houston-Victoria, 2003; Make Your Last Words Count. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin Madison; Miquel, Fuster-Marquez and Carmen Gregori-Signes. “Chapter Six: ‘Last but Not Least:’ Writing the Conclusion of Your Paper.” In Writing an Applied Linguistics Thesis or Dissertation: A Guide to Presenting Empirical Research . John Bitchener, editor. (Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), pp. 93-105; Tips for Writing a Good Conclusion. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Kretchmer, Paul. Twelve Steps to Writing an Effective Conclusion. San Francisco Edit, 2003-2008; Writing Conclusions. Writing Tutorial Services, Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Indiana University; Writing: Considering Structure and Organization. Institute for Writing Rhetoric. Dartmouth College.
Don't Belabor the Obvious!
Avoid phrases like "in conclusion...," "in summary...," or "in closing...." These phrases can be useful, even welcome, in oral presentations. But readers can see by the tell-tale section heading and number of pages remaining that they are reaching the end of your paper. You'll irritate your readers if you belabor the obvious.
Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8.
New Insight, Not New Information!
Don't surprise the reader with new information in your conclusion that was never referenced anywhere else in the paper. This is why the conclusion rarely has citations to sources that haven't been referenced elsewhere in your paper. If you have new information to present, add it to the discussion or other appropriate section of the paper. Note that, although no new information is introduced, the conclusion, along with the discussion section, is where you offer your most "original" contributions in the paper; the conclusion is where you describe the value of your research, demonstrate that you understand the material that you have presented, and position your findings within the larger context of scholarship on the topic, including describing how your research contributes new insights to that scholarship.
Assan, Joseph. "Writing the Conclusion Chapter: The Good, the Bad and the Missing." Liverpool: Development Studies Association (2009): 1-8; Conclusions. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
II. Abstract: "Structured abstract" has become the standard for research papers (introduction, objective, methods, results and conclusions), while reviews, case reports and other articles have non-structured abstracts. The abstract should be a summary/synopsis of the paper. III. Introduction: The "why did you do the study"; setting the ...
2. Introduction. Introduce to your reader the "problem" by providing a brief background of your research. Include the basic reasons how and why you came-up with the problem, and the probable solutions that you can offer. In general, the introduction summarizes the purpose of the research paper. 3.
Introduction. For many students, writing the introduction is the first part of the process, setting down the direction of the paper and laying out exactly what the research paper is trying to achieve.. For others, the introduction is the last thing written, acting as a quick summary of the paper. As long as you have planned a good structure for the parts of a research paper, both approaches ...
In any form of written communication, content structure plays a vital role in facilitating understanding. A well-structured research paper provides a framework that guides readers through the content, ensuring they grasp the main points efficiently. Without a clear structure, readers may become lost or confused, leading to a loss of interest ...
1. Research Paper Title. A research paper title is read first, and read the most. The title serves two purposes: informing readers and attracting attention. Therefore, your research paper title should be clear, descriptive, and concise. If you can, avoid technical jargon and abbreviations.
Writing papers in college requires you to come up with sophisticated, complex, and sometimes very creative ways of structuring your ideas.Taking the time to draft an outline can help you determine if your ideas connect to each other, what order of ideas works best, where gaps in your thinking may exist, or whether you have sufficient evidence to support each of your points.
Each of these examples is specific enough that we already have a sense of what the paper might discuss, but simple enough for most readers to quickly understand. Try one of the following to catch the reader's eye: • An eye-catching, startling fact or statistic. • An interesting or provocative question • A definition of a key term or concept
A complete research paper in APA style that is reporting on experimental research will typically contain a Title page, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and References sections. 1 Many will also contain Figures and Tables and some will have an Appendix or Appendices. These sections are detailed as follows (for a more in ...
Research Paper Structure. With the above in mind, you can now focus on structure. Scientific papers are organized into specific sections and each has a goal. We have listed them here. Title. Your title is the most important part of your paper. It draws the reader in and tells them what you are presenting.
Formal Research Structure. These are the primary purposes for formal research: enter the discourse, or conversation, of other writers and scholars in your field. learn how others in your field use primary and secondary resources. find and understand raw data and information. For the formal academic research assignment, consider an ...
3. Structure of a Scientific Research Paper. A primary way that scientists communicate with one another is through scientific papers. We will model our Biocore lab reports on the format most commonly used by scientific journals. Your lab reports should follow the guidelines described below unless the lab manual or your TA specifically tells you ...
A research paper outline is a useful tool to aid in the writing process, providing a structure to follow with all information to be included in the paper clearly organized. A quality outline can make writing your research paper more efficient by helping to: Organize your thoughts; Understand the flow of information and how ideas are related
Formulating a research question or problem, and/or; Continuing a disciplinary tradition. 3. Place your research within the research niche by: Stating the intent of your study, Outlining the key characteristics of your study, Describing important results, and; Giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper.
report flag outlined. The basic structure of a typical research paper is the sequence of Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (sometimes abbreviated as IMRAD). Each section addresses a different objective. ... In the Introduction, the authors should explain the rationale and background to the study. Advertisement.
Provide necessary background, including definitions of any relevant words * introduction thesis statement body conclusion 2. summarize the persuasive essay idea * introduction thesis statement body conclusion 3. provide arguments, support each with evidence * introduction thesis statement body conclusion 4. hook, define the audience, state a ...
The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper. A conclusion is not merely a summary of the main topics covered or a re-statement of your research problem, but a synthesis of key points derived from the findings of your study and, if applicable based on your analysis, explain new areas for future research.
What is research paper - 2884749. answered What is research paper See answer Advertisement Advertisement Brainly User Brainly User Answer: research paper is an essay in which you explain what you have learned after exploring your topic in depth. you also include information from sources such as books, articles, interviews, and Internet sites ...
A research paper is an in-depth essay that presents the writer's original scholarship after an analysis of the research conducted on a particular topic. This academic task is an integral element of the college curriculum, challenging students to engage in knowledge creation by immersing themselves in existing literature and formulating their ...
Find an answer to your question What is a research paper? See what teachers have to say about Brainly's new learning tools! WATCH
The topic of a research paper is the general subject it addresses, which should be complex enough to invite different viewpoints. Choosing this topic involves identifying areas of interest and controversy, brainstorming ideas, and then refining them with the aid of thesis statements and group discussions to formulate a workable paper topic.