The key findings and implications sections of a scientific investigation represent the intellectual culmination of the research process. They require students to move beyond describing data to interpreting what that data means — for the research question specifically and for broader environmental understanding.
Key findings are the most important, evidence-supported conclusions drawn from the primary data collected.
A key finding:
- Directly answers the research question
- Is supported by specific data (cite values, trends, statistical comparisons)
- Is accurate — does not overstate what the data shows
- Acknowledges the scope and limitations of the evidence
A strong key finding statement includes:
1. What was observed (the pattern in the data)
2. The direction and magnitude of the effect (not just ‘there was a difference’)
3. Connection to the hypothesis (supported or not supported)
Weak finding: ‘Biodiversity was higher in native vegetation.’
Strong finding: ‘The mean SID for native vegetation sites (0.72 ± 0.04) was significantly higher than for cleared pasture sites (0.31 ± 0.08), supporting the hypothesis that vegetation cover positively influences species diversity. This suggests that even patches of remnant native vegetation in agricultural landscapes support substantially greater biodiversity than adjacent cleared land.’
| Section | Focus |
|---|---|
| Results | What the data shows (describe, don’t interpret) |
| Findings | The most important patterns — what we can conclude from the data |
| Discussion | Why the findings make sense; how they connect to prior knowledge; what they mean |
| Implications | What the findings mean beyond the investigation itself |
Implications are the broader meanings, consequences or applications of the investigation’s findings.
Implications may be:
- Scientific: What does this add to understanding of the ecological/climate/energy system studied?
- Practical/management: What should be done differently based on this finding?
- Policy: Does this finding support or challenge existing environmental policies?
- Further research: What new questions do these findings raise?
| Level | Example |
|---|---|
| Local/site | ‘These results suggest that retaining remnant vegetation patches in the Gippsland region supports biodiversity and should be a priority for local government land management’ |
| Landscape/regional | ‘Wildlife corridor connectivity appears to be a significant driver of species diversity and should inform regional biodiversity strategies’ |
| National/global | ‘These findings align with international research on the importance of habitat connectivity for biodiversity in fragmented agricultural landscapes’ |
Implications often connect to sustainability principles:
Example investigation: Comparing soil carbon storage in native grassland vs. grazed pasture.
Findings must not be over-generalised beyond what the data supports:
Scope constraints:
- ‘These findings apply to [specific habitat/region/season] and may not generalise to all contexts’
- ‘The small sample size limits the confidence with which these findings can be applied to the broader landscape’
- ‘Further investigation across multiple seasons and additional sites would be needed to confirm these patterns’
In a scientific poster, key findings should:
- Be prominent — the most visible content after the title
- Be expressed as clear, direct statements — readers should immediately grasp what was found
- Be supported by a figure — each key finding paired with the data that demonstrates it
- Avoid hedging language that obscures the result (‘there may possibly have been a slight tendency towards somewhat higher diversity…’)
VCAA FOCUS: The discussion and conclusion sections of the investigation are among the most heavily weighted. VCAA assessors look for: evidence of genuine engagement with what the data means; honest acknowledgement of limitations; connection to relevant environmental science concepts; and implications that are realistic given the scale and scope of the investigation.
