Week 1 (Lecture)

• Introduction
  • Set standards
  • Discuss purpose of paper discussions
  • Discuss components common to papers or what papers are meant to achieve
    • Might include a small group session; have students brainstorm what should be in papers. Tabulate and discuss as class
• Introduction to the reading worksheet prompts (what to do/turn in before coming to the workshop)

Weeks 2/3 (Paper 1)

• Example of student-level research
  • M. S. Burns, et al., “Measurement of gravitational time dilation: An undergraduate research project”, American Journal of Physics 85, 757 (2017).
• Instructors lead discussion “by example”

Weeks 4/5 (Paper 2)

• Example of historical research & modern follow-up or AJP article

Week 6 (Lecture)

• Topics TBD (based on feedback we get from students through papers 1 and 2)
• Ideas:
  • an open Q&A for a bit about scientific papers and practices
  • an introduction to review rubric that will be used next quarter
  • possible practice on short piece as calibration

Weeks 7/8 (Paper 3)

• TBD

Weeks 9/10 (Paper 4)

• TBD

Might be too close to relativistic electrons lab

* Pros: Nice simple experiment, real data with uncertainties on the results, a nuanced comparison with literature and discussion

• Cons: a little long (6 pages), no error bars on plots, same tangent discussions

| * Gravity-driven fluid oscillations in a drinking straw |

• Pros: This one is super short (3 pages), very basic physics, easy to digest.
• Cons: Loose with uncertainties, a little light on details about the more complex model they use.

| * A simple mechanical apparatus for measuring the surface tension of soap bubbles |

• Pros: simple physics, clever apparatus, data with error bars and comparison to exceptions
• Cons: about half the paper is a long digression about “stability” which is relevant to a person trying to replicate the experiment, but less important to a person interested in results

Browninan motion

Compton scattering

Muon lifetime

Neutron mass

Wave-Particle Duality

Kershaw, T.C., Lippman, J.P. & Fugate, J.M.B. Instr Sci (2018) 46: 921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9456-2

1. What was the purpose of this research? - What did the researchers do? (Summarize method, including participants, procedure, independent variables, and dependent variables). - What were the main results? - What is the take-home message (conclusion)? - What criticisms do you have of this research? Is there anything you would do differently? - (Content-specific)

Participants were asked to write a summary of the article. Specifically, they were told that their summaries should address the following guiding questions:

1. What are the most important points of the study in this article? Include enough detail about the goals, design, and method of the study to put those points in context.

2. What are the real-world implications of the findings of this study?

3. Are there any potential weaknesses in the design or procedure of this study that limit how much you trust the findings?

Participants were instructed to take no more than 50 min to read the article and write the summary, and to not write a summary that was longer than one typed page (500 words).