Prerequisites
None
Learning Outcomes and Assessment
The Research Review is similar to the literature review which might be undertaken at the start of any major research project, including a PhD. On completion of the review you should have:
- learnt to interrogate the primary literature via the web and other library/information resources, such as the Web of Science;
- developed your critical faculties, so that you come to an informed view of the current state of knowledge in the field, with an ability to distinguish between (on the one hand) widely known and accepted views, and (on the other hand), more speculative or less-developed theories and views;
- developed the ability to summarize, explain and present the research topic and conclusions in a clear and logical style;
- learnt to use at least one text-processing package effectively;
- practised presenting your work in a style appropriate to the topic, both in writing (via the Report) and orally (via a presentation to peers).
Assessment
The following guidelines for allocation of marks to Part II Research Reviews will be given to assessors. Each heading carries equal weight.
- Scientific content: How much appropriate understanding of science (particularly physics) was shown?
- Quality of work: How carefully/accurately/successfully was the work planned and performed? Was an appropriate amount of relevant material included?
- Communication skills: Report: was the report well written and clearly organised, with clear and well-balanced arguments, appropriate use of figures and tables, etc? Viva: was the student able to summarise the work and to respond coherently to questions?
After the oral examination, the assessors will upload their report and recommended mark to the TiS.
See below for details of the arrangements for assessment.
Synopsis
A research review is aimed at producing a descriptive and critical review of an area of physics of particular interest to the student. Its precise form may vary, and is to be agreed with the supervisor. The report should normally be at a level that is appropriate for another Part II student to be able to understand. The topic could range from a review of the very latest research in a particular area to, for example, a classic discovery of the twentieth century. In some cases the supervisor may indicate one or two articles which serve as an introduction; in other cases the student may need to search for relevant starting papers.
Choosing a review
The research review abstracts are available on the web, see www-teach.phy.cam.ac.uk/teaching/courses/research-reviews/101#abstracts). Students may also suggest reviews of their own, but they must have a supervisor (who may be external) and the review must be approved in advance. Students interested in a particular review should discuss it as soon as possible with the relevant supervisor. The list of reviews on the web will be updated as new ones are added.
By Friday 3rd November 2023, students should select (via the drop down menu) the review topics they would like to do, in order of preference. Reviews will then be assigned to students, and students and supervisors informed of the outcome.
Doing the work
Reviews can be started during the Michaelmas term or they may be deferred until the Lent term. But it is generally a good idea to start some reading over the Christmas/New Year vacation. It is important to remember that the review counts for the same as one Tripos paper, so students should bear this in mind when deciding how much time to devote to it. During the preparation for the writing of the report, students will be asked to give a short talk presenting their preliminary work to a group of students writing research reviews in similar areas. It is expected that supervisors will organise these group sessions, which will consist of, say, four to eight students, in the last two or three weeks of the Lent term. Students will receive feedback on the content and presentation of their reviews from the supervisors present and from their fellow students. This form of presentation is aimed at developing communication and presentational skills. You will be awarded 5% of the available marks for the Research Review upon giving the presentation (irrespective of its quality).
The Web of Science database (http://www.webofscience.com/) may be used to find relevant papers. You will need your Raven login.
Supervision
Review supervisors may claim payment for up to two hours of supervision from the student's College, via CamCORS in the usual way. If a Teaching Officer delegates the day-to-day supervision of the project to a Research Associate or other postdoc, then it would be appropriate for that person to be the one claiming payment.
It is not expected that review supervision will necessarily be limited to two hours. Colleges pay simply for the mentoring, monitoring and reporting aspects of supervision, and not for the subject teaching, which is the Department's responsibility and is a core part of a University Teaching Officer's duties.
Submission
The write-up of the review will typically be in the style of a paper published in a scientific journal. The style of the review should be agreed with the supervisor. The review should describe and explain the main features of the subject, suggesting in which direction the field is moving, and drawing some conclusions. The main text should be concise (3000 words maximum for the main body of the text, including figure captions, but excluding the abstract, references and any appendices (although normally appendices would not be appropriate). In addition, there must be an abstract of not more than 250 words. The student and supervisor should discuss the general structure of the review before writing is started, but the supervisor should not read a full version of the text until it is submitted.
The deadline for submission of the research review is 4:00 pm on the first Monday of Easter Full Term (29th April 2024). You are required to submit a pdf copy via the TiS (to submit your report, please go to the 'My reviews' tab, you will find details on how to submit your work there). You may upload as multiple copies as you wish up to the deadline, with the latest version being assessed. In order to preserve anonymity when your review is looked at by the Part II examiners, your name must not appear on the review itself. You should ensure that on the first page of the research review, together with the title of the review, you give your supervisor's name.
Viva
The review will be assessed by two people, normally the supervisor and another staff member, who will conduct an oral examination (typically 30 minutes long) of the student on the work. The student will be asked to give a short verbal summary, normally uninterrupted, of the review during the interview. The assessor, who will be appointed by the Teaching Committee, will generally not be a specialist in the field. Students should expect to be contacted by their supervisor shortly after handing their review in, to arrange the oral examination.
These assessors will write a report to the Part II Examiners and will recommend a mark. These marks are not necessarily final and may be amended by the examiners, who also look at the reviews. After the examations the on-line mark sheet can be viewed by the student, which will provide feedback on your performance. The marks allocated by the assessors are subject to moderation and scaling by the examiners, so the mark recorded on the marksheet may not match the final mark for this piece of work in the College Markbook.
Resources
You should review the contents of the handout "Keeping Laboratory Notes and Writing Formal Reports", which is available from the course Handouts tab. You might also find it helpful to review the Part IB Physics A "Experimental Methods" lecture 6 on writing a report/giving a talk.
If there are any queries concerning these arrangements, please contact Dr Dave Green (email: dag9@cam.ac.uk).
| Dr Dave Green | Coordinator |