For students with a draft Chapter Four: the data presentation, analysis and discussion of findings in a Nigerian five-chapter project, or the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data in a Philippine thesis. The page covers the order of the chapter, tables and the note under them, the statistics a reader checks, and the link to Chapter Two. University guides from Nigeria and the Philippines are quoted where they set a rule.
No one sees their own blind spots, with or without AI help. Esmond points them out in your draft from within your field, along with factual errors and inconsistencies.
In Chapter Four the data collected with the instrument from Chapter Three answer the questions set in Chapter One. It can hold the presentation of the data, the analysis (descriptive statistics for the research questions, inferential tests for the hypotheses) and a discussion of the findings. The University of Ibadan's Postgraduate College lists results and discussion as separate sections, then adds: “Results and discussion could be combined as a single chapter, based on disciplinary preference or if it would enhance the quality of presentation.”
Newgate University Minna's guidelines for project reports split the work: results in Chapter Four, discussion in Chapter Five, conclusion and recommendations in Chapter Six. In the Philippines, Pacific InterContinental College's 2025 guidebook titles Chapter 4 presentation, analysis and interpretation of data, with the sub-problems from Chapter 1 as subheadings. Your department's outline decides which version you follow.
For the general line between reporting and interpreting, see results vs. discussion; for APA reporting of a single test, the psychology results section page; for other chapters, thesis chapter feedback.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour Hypothesis three is tested with a chi-square of 3.21 against a table value of 9.49 at 4 degrees of freedom, and the text then rejects the null hypothesis. With the calculated value below the table value, which decision does your own rule in Chapter Three give?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewA reader keeps Chapter One open next to Chapter Four. Research question one is answered first, then question two, and so on, with the hypotheses tested after them or alongside them, in the numbering and wording Chapter One used. Emilio Aguinaldo College Cavite's thesis manual makes the same point for the discussion: it recommends restating the central research problem and questions in this chapter and answering them there.
A questionnaire-based Chapter Four can open with the response rate and the profile of the respondents: how many questionnaires went out, how many came back usable, and why the others were dropped. Every later table should add up to that number. Profile characteristics matter most where a later test compares groups by them, because the group sizes fix the degrees of freedom.
Chapter Three fixed the rules before the data came in: which test answers which hypothesis, the significance level, and, for scaled questionnaire items, a decision rule. One possible convention on a four-point scale takes the midpoint, (4 + 3 + 2 + 1) / 4 = 2.50, and reads a mean at or above it as agreement; it is a choice you state and justify yourself. Chapter Four applies the rules as stated. If the analysis changed, for example from a t-test to a Mann-Whitney test because the data were skewed, say so and give the reason.
Each table needs a number, a title that names the variable and the respondents, and a short interpretation. The EMT 417 lecture notes at the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta state: “Each table or figure must have an explanatory note, which should be short.” Emilio Aguinaldo College Cavite's manual is direct about what that note is for: “Do not leave the reader to sort out figures and decide what they mean.”
Reading every frequency and percentage back in a sentence ("40 respondents, representing 26.7%, strongly agreed...") repeats the table and leaves the meaning out. The note states what the numbers show for the research question: which items fell above the decision rule, which fell below, and the overall mean.
Newgate University Minna's guidelines put a plain question to this chapter: “Are the results presented accurate, coherent and presented in a transparent manner?” A reader checks that percentages match frequencies and that a mean in the text is the mean in the table.
A supervisor doesn't have your data file, but can check whether the numbers you report agree with each other. The degrees of freedom follow from the sample and the design; the decision follows from the p-value or the table value.
| Test | Used for | What to report | What a reader checks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-square test of independence | Two categorical variables, such as gender and course choice | χ² value, df, N, p (or calculated vs. table value) | df = (rows − 1) × (columns − 1); expected counts large enough (Cochran's rule: none below 1, no more than 20% of cells below 5) |
| Independent-samples t-test | Two group means | Group means and SDs, t, df, p | df = n1 + n2 − 2; equal variances checked, or Welch's version used |
| One-way ANOVA | Three or more group means | Group means, F(between df, within df), p, post hoc test | A significant F says some means differ; a post hoc test (Tukey, Scheffé) says which |
| Pearson correlation (PPMC) | Relationship between two continuous variables | r, n or df, p | Linearity and outliers checked; r describes association, not cause |
| Multiple regression | Several predictors of one outcome | R², F, each coefficient with SE, t and p | Residuals and multicollinearity checked; predictors match the hypotheses |
The discussion sets each finding against the studies reviewed in Chapter Two. The University of Ibadan's manual describes this part as follows: “This refers to the results discussed in the light of relevant or related previous works in the treatment of the subject matter and in respect of the objectives of the research.” The EMT 417 notes, which place the discussion in Chapter Five, add a limit on repetition: “This should not repeat the result. It should rather interpret the results, relating them to previous work done and compare it to a given standard or permissible level or threshold.”
Per finding, a reader looks for the earlier studies it agrees with, those it contradicts, and a reason for the difference that the data or setting can support (another population, instrument or period). A study that appears for the first time in the discussion makes a reader check whether Chapter Two missed it.
In a qualitative Chapter Four the order still follows the research questions. Each theme gets a definition, quotations from more than one participant, and a note on cases that don't fit.
These fragments are made up. None of them comes from a real thesis.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
In a Chapter Four, Esmond can flag points in your own text that a supervisor or panel would query: degrees of freedom that don't fit the reported group sizes, a decision that contradicts the p-value or table value reported next to it, a figure in the text that differs from the table, a hypothesis from Chapter One with no test, a causal claim from a correlation, or a discussion that names no earlier study. The sample report shows how such comments look, and how Esmond works describes the steps.
Esmond reads what you upload. If the file holds the whole draft, it can set this chapter against the others; if it holds one chapter, the review stays within that chapter and may raise a point that another chapter already answers.
Esmond reads the statistics as you report them. It doesn't open your data file, recompute or rerun your tests, or choose a test for you, and it doesn't check the chapter against your department's format. Which comments you act on is your decision.
Analysis is the computation: frequencies, means, the test statistic and its p-value. Interpretation says what that result means for the research question or hypothesis, for example that a mean of 2.81 lies above the cut-off your Chapter Three set, so respondents agreed with the item.
In the order of the research questions, with each theme defined, quoted from several participants, and the cases that don't fit noted. The discussion relates the themes to the reviewed literature.
Read on November 8, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit