The approach to the frames of General Physics Course is described. The requirements and the system of appraising are listed. Main parts of a work are characterized in brief. It is shown how a work should be written in the form of a scientific report (article). The goal of the recommendations is to help students to perform a course work of high quality in no time.

Table of contents:

1. Structure and volume of the course paper.
2. Abstract.
3. Introduction.
4. Theory.
5. Experiment.
6. Results.
7. Discussion.
8. Conclusions.
9. Inference
10. Comments and remarks,.
11. Acknowledgment.
12. References.
13. Appendix 1. The evaluation criteria of the course paper.
14. Appendix 2. On style.
15. Samples of references.

1.Structure and volume of the course paper.

A course paper is an independent investigation of a student written as a scientific report. A course paper is an inseparable part of the curriculum.

The objectives of the course paper are:

firstly, to provide a student with a possibility of performing an independent scientific investigation and to enlarge their knowledge of the general course of physics;
secondly, to determine the student's capability of conducting an independent investigation.

The course paper topic is to be related to the contents of the studied course of physics. The topic may be suggested by the student or by the lecturer.

The best papers take part in the competition organized at the end of each semester. When determining the winners, the preference is given to the papers of a corresponding practical course of physics (molecular physics, electricity and magnetism, optics, nuclear physics).

The course paper should have the following sections: introduction, theory, experiment, results, discussion, conclusions, inference, comments and remarks, acknowledgment, references and appendices.

An abstract no longer than half a page is placed after the title page and goes before the table of contents. The list of notations and abbreviations follows the table of contents.

The figures are placed in the text. The paper is to be neatly written (typed paper desirable). There are no rigid requirements to the paper volume but each of the enumerated sections should contain information sufficient for the clear understanding of its essence.

2. Abstract.

Abstract is a brief outline of the course paper contents. The abstract contains the answers to the following questions. What is the object of investigation? What is investigated? What is the method of investigation? What is the range of varied parameters? What was cleared up or formulated? What is the novelty of the paper? Were the errors analyzed and what are the reasons for possible errors? In what field of knowledge the results obtained can be applied?

3. Introduction.

The sense of mystery is the most fascinating
feelings available to us. It is this feeling
that stands near the cradle of real art and real science."
Albert Einstein.
Nobel Prize laureate

In this section you should validate the necessity of your investigation, explain your interest and the value of the selected scientific direction for fundamental or applied physics. You should answer the following questions. What is known about this problem? Who solved this problem before and by which methods? Are they reliable? State clearly what your are intending to study; identify your "place" in this problem; formulate the goal precisely. In doing so, bear in mind that "any goal is understood in a different way than the person who defines it". Show what methods will be employed to solve the problem. Outline the merits and drawbacks of the methods used, the problems and complications arising when measuring physical quantities, the possible errors. Do not forget that in the introduction you should persuade the reader that the experiment carried out is important. In other words, you should answer the question: "What for was the experiment carried out and what was its objective?". The introduction is to draw the reader's interest and if the reader did not fall asleep, this is your first success.

4. Theory.

The theoretical section of the paper should describe the notions, concepts and ideas aimed at the explanation of the phenomenon under consideration. The purpose of the theoretical section is a deeper understanding of the problem selected. This section outlines the level of understanding of the investigated subject, presents a clear notion of the direction where the effort will be applied when conducting the experiment and the reasons for this.

Note that any experiment is based on the theory which determines the problem formulation and the interpretation of its results. In the section "Discussion" you will turn to hypotheses, physical models and concepts, calculations and known facts described in the theoretical background. Probably, this will be your theory. "Do not be afraid to contradict the existing concepts as long as your ideas are in good correspondence with experiment which is the most important criterion of truth", was the advise of N.N.Semenov, the Nobel Prize laureate [1]. Therefore, your material must be compared with the results obtained, it must be experimentally confirmed. Make your theoretical concepts understandable for the reader. It is well known that A.Einstein mentioned P.Ehrenfest's well developed capability of identifying the very essence of a theoretical notion and of disclosing theory of its mathematical clothes so that its simple basic idea was revealed with all possible lucidity.

5. Experiment.

The experimental section is the principal one in the course paper. It describes in detail the experimental facility, the main attention being paid to those elements which can affect the measurement results. If the equipment is not standard, its scheme should be given. The scheme facilitates the understanding of the material presented. However, its graphical presentation should be accurate.

One should secure controlled conditions in an experiment (as a method of knowledge). Describe the measurement technique separately and thoroughly. Here you should formulate explicitly the idea of the technique, paying attention to the means of measurement and possible errors. "When you can measure what you are speaking about and express this in figures, you know something about it, but when you are not able to measure it, when you are not able to express this in figures, your knowledge is week and unsatisfactory; this may be the beginning of your knowledge but you only approached in your mind to what is worth calling science no matter what is the object of investigation." These are the words of J. Thomson. That is why "to learn how to measure correctly is one of the most important but the hardest to realize stages of science. One false measurement is enough to prevent the discovery of a new law and, what is even worse, may lead to discovery of a fictitious law; this was the case, for example, with the law of unsaturated compounds of hydrogen and oxygen based on experimental errors in Bunsen's measurements" (S.I.Vavilov).

Therefore, pay attention to the reliability of the results presented. The section concerning the experiment performance should describe the sequence of operations, means and methods which characterize the technology of the experiment. Answer the following questions as fully as you can. How this was done? How it went? By what method is the result obtained? A detailed description usually indicates the author's attention to important trifles, the researcher's accuracy and honesty. The information on your experiment allows other researchers to reproduce it when it is necessary to rest upon your results in order to go further. Besides, every physical experiment, if it is carefully done, has its own significance (S.I.Vavilov).

Remember that an experiment is an expensive amusement. Therefore, "if a good, validated theory allow one to calculate the process, what for an experiment is needed? Why should one be proud that all points fall on the theoretical curve? Experiments are required where the theory works poorly and our knowledge is scarce" (N.N.Yanenko).

6. Results.

This section contains facts and only pure facts. They must be stated without any bias. A presented result should be characterized fairly completely, it should have "its passport", i.e. the conditions in which it was obtained. Do not neglect small things. Describe in detail: what was found, what attracted your attention, what seemed strange or surprising. Do not reject the obtained dependence only on the grounds that it is not in line with your concepts. We are investigating the actual phenomena and our current knowledge may lack completeness. It is at obtaining this knowledge that your work is aimed.

The measurement results are frequently listed in a table. These are primary, fundamental data. Indicate their reproducibility and mention the uncertainties of the measured quantities. This our sacred duty. Treat them carefully: this is our extracted treasure. Probably, they will be used to calculate a more complex dependence by somebody else. Special attention should be paid to graphs. The caption should describe what is shown there. Do not abridge its text. It should be fairly complete. Show the ready graph to your colleague. Will he understand its essence? Is your graph understandable without a caption? Will your colleague understand what is, in fact, investigated and under what conditions? Very often graphs are more informative than words.

About drawings. They are obligatory when describing the experimental facility and its individual parts from the viewpoint of the physics of the process. For example, when studying the gas flow through the nozzle one should know its geometry, whereas when studying the shock wave propagation velocity the scheme of sensors is required which are the fundamental measurement devices. To put in a nutshell, it is impossible to investigate a phenomenon without the reader's clear understanding of "methodical details".

The uncertainties of the results obtained and the possible errors should be described here in detail. Do not write mere verbiage like "the measurement error for all remaining voltages is 2 %". Specify what devices were used and how the errors were determined. Try to answer the question: "What for is the information on the errors in my research needed?"

Remember that the errors estimate is required to extract the results closest to the truth from all the data obtained, to notice the discrepancies and mistakes that crept in, to correctly organize the measurements and evaluate the accuracy of the results obtained. Probably, it is useful to address an appropriate practicum on measurements or special literature [2, 3, 4].

7. Discussion.

This is the central, most important section of your paper. It contains critically interpreted, processed information on the data you obtained. It is here that you should carry out their analysis and synthesis.

Firstly, you should distinguish the principal, fundamental result. This may be a single graph, a single reliable measured quantity, one or several photographs - no matter what. Demonstrate the value of the information obtained, show whether the data are stable under the conditions changed, define clearly the area of parameters where the data are valid.

Secondly, you should correlate the results obtained with those stated in the theoretical section. If your results correspond to a known, reliable scientific fact, you are lucky, that's your day. If the determined values coincide with the tabular data within a certain range of conditions, you did a good job. This means that you are leaning on the giants' shoulders and they help you to acquire confidence when you optimism is exhausted.

Thirdly, pay attention to the results accompanying the basic one. For example, you were measuring the limiting strength loads on a material prior to its disruption and notices radiation. Describe the observed phenomenon and show in which conditions, under which loads it was observed. Probably, this portion of investigation will become the basic one in your future work. Here just note the observed effect.

Move towards you goal. The discussion of results should be in line with the title of your paper. The reader should see that you are investigating the problem mentioned in the title during you discussion.

The purpose of this section is to understand, to explain the mechanism of the process under study, to find the reason for the observed phenomenon. First of all, discuss the results using known physical models by previous authors. Note the facts that can be explained and those that fall outside the frames of the theories known to you. Put an emphasis here, draw the reader's attention to this. Formulate explicitly the facts that cannot be explained within the frames of the old theories. Find your own appropriate explanation, formulate clearly the hypotheses, show how the new result may be treated. Take advantages of your capabilities.

8. Conclusions.

In contrast to the abstract where you underline the value and applicability of your work, here you should note the essence of what you have done. Mind that the table of contents indicates what you were doing, the abstract shows what was done and the value of your labour, and the conclusions enumerate what was found. Therefore, these sections do not repeat, but complement each other. Thus, they facilitate the orientation in the reader's search for the required information and estimation of your work. The section "Conclusions" is well characterized by B.Weisberg: "This is similar to concentration of a solution close to saturation, and to extraction of the largest and most valuable crystals from the obtained agglomerate." [5]. Specialist say frequently: "a dry residual".

9. Inference

This section reflects the prospects of the investigation which was carried out, allows the understanding of the problem selected. In conclusion you present your own evaluation of the work and may express your opinion that further research is pointless if your arguments are rather convincing. In future other researchers (students) will be able to orient themselves better in the choice of the topic.

Indicate what new and useful applications the development of this topic may find. Tell about new, unconventional performance of an experiment. Do not worry that your ideas will be stolen. Firstly, your are their author after you described them. Secondly, if you have common ideas with other researchers, i.e. the ideas were born during your discussions with somebody, mention the potential co-authors, this will strengthen your position. And thirdly, grant your ideas, this is a real pleasure.

10. Comments and remarks.

The comments show the critical relation of the author towards the entire work (this means towards himself as well). This section allows the reader to understand how the work was organized; what stimulated and hampered it; what portion was the most difficult and why; what was to be done more thoroughly and what was to be avoided; what took a lot of time and where you had to hurry. Tell what you are sorry about. Probably, the problem was too easy or too difficult? Did you manage to get a clear concept of the work objective and requirements from the very start and what hampered this? Believe that your paper will be read and your results will be used. Therefore, the facts stated in "Comments" is your experience of the work performance which is no less valuable than the work itself.

11. Acknowledgment.

"Acknowledgment" is a delicate portion of the paper. Nobody can make you be grateful. It is difficult to give a piece of advice here. Everyone chooses his own way, style or words. This is a question of culture.

However, we will say in what cases the researchers usually write a special section for this purpose:

• the research theme is suggested;
• the discussion of the theme selection;
• the discussion of the choice of the experimental facility layout;
• allocation of the experimental equipment, the help in its assembling;
• the discussion of the research methods;
• the help in performing the experiments;
• the investigation of samples or special additional studies;
• the discussion of results;
• the help in the development of the physical models of the process or their discussions;
• the help in writing the paper;
• the discussion of work or recommendations for its improvement;
• the moral support;
• other reasons.

Evidently, here we speak about the creative contribution to the work.

Note that usually (always) the manuscript is shown to those mentioned in this section. It is still a question whether your colleagues agree to this. They understand they bear the responsibility for this work. If they share the author's viewpoint, if they are content with it, they usually are eager to help. To pour out your thanks means to help yourself.

12. References.

References are located at the end of your paper and is an important supplement to it. It may be associated with a root system supporting your labour. We hope that the reader will find much interesting and useful in the papers and monographs cited by you.

If you have used someone's information - do not fail to make a reference. There are situations when you should include entire paragraphs, pages of text in your paper - make a reference. Say that this problem is well covered, surveyed or described by this-and-that author, therefore, you are presenting it in full. Do not forget to give the pages of the source, since accidental mistakes occur sometimes and they are easier to determine when you have an exact address. Do not include references which you did not use but wanted to include only for "pompous" reasons.

If you refer to a spoken information, for example, someone's opinion or advice - make a reference (Mr. This-and-that - private information, date).

The amount and quality of the references used shows to what extent the author is able to use the fundamental, necessary and up-to-date information. After reading the abstract and conclusions, a specialist usually passes to references and sees at once what place occupies this paper in the flow of information.

One can spend a lot of time, obtain good results and fail to know that they are out-of-date. And this is not a pleasant surprise for the author.

Pay attention to the way the list of references is written. You can use the references in this paper as an example.

13. Appendix 1.

The evaluation criteria of the course paper.

It is useful and interesting to know how your work will be estimated. Naturally, it is better to know these criteria before you start writing your course paper. Besides, identical (standard) requirements to student make the lecturer more objective.

First of all, it is desirable to follow the recommendation stated here. There may be certainly deviations (towards the better side) but we advise you to follow the paper structure for its easier understanding.

The lecturers are interested to get an answer for the following questions.

• Is the investigation justified sufficiently well?
• Is the topic urgent?
• Is there novelty?
• What peculiar is there in this work?
• Is the goal achieved or the paper is not finished?
• Are the results obtained reliable?
• Was the topic suggested by the student himself?
• Was the topic borrowed and is the source known?
• What is the personal contribution of the author?
• Has the paper an attractive appearance?

One should pay special attention to the time when the topic was approved. The best variant is when it is defined by a student beforehand, in the semester beginning. Some cases are known when the students suggested experiments of their own design much earlier. Then they have time to work over theoretical papers and to create an experimental facility.

Do not leave the topic selection for later on. Most probably, everything will settle down indeed but in what way? You want to prepare an interesting, "excellent" paper and you usually need time for this.

14. On style.

Written processing of scientific investigations is often a very hard task, at least, it cost a great deal of effort for me. I rewrite many sections of my papers four or six times, changing the order of the entire paper, and only then I was content with it. But such thorough editing is of great benefit to the author. (...) I never thought me study to be finished finally until it lay in front of me written in a complete form. These words belong to H.Helmholtz. No serious researcher writes "on the spot". Do not believe those who say they "wrote it straight off well" and do not be disappointed when something goes wrong. This means that you see that something is out of order and you have a chance to write better. This is the opinion of Ch. Darwin: "Hitherto I had a habit of thinking over every phrase before writing it. But several years ago I came to a conclusion that I spent much less time if I jotted down whole pages as fast as I could and in most horrifying handwriting, and only after that I started to think it over and correct. The phrases written in such a way often turned out to be better than those which I could have written after I had considered them thoroughly". "The skill of good writing should not be disjoined from the skill of good experimenting. Both of them have their own charm," is noted by G.L.Squires in the famous book "Practical Physics" [6]. "Try to express your thoughts intelligibly and represent them in most favourable light. Work as much as you can so that you do not leave them dark and confused but make them clear and comprehensive," this is a piece of advise by S.Servantes.

However, the main thing in the course paper is that you should be understood. It is difficult but, nevertheless, possible. One of the widely used way is as follows. Write the text and put it aside for a while, read it again a week later. Try to gain an understanding of the essence of you paper, put yourself on the reader's place who sees the paper for the first time. Pay attention to the logic of the material presentation, to the relations between the section and various parts of the paper. The key idea should be clearly expressed in each paragraph. Conclusions are necessary is every section or voluminous paragraph. Their explicit formulations should permit no dual interpretation of your thoughts and results. This is helpful. It is appropriate here to cite O. Zamulin who was the student - an economist from the Grinnel College, USA: "What for a physicist is needed who can discover something great but cannot bring this to people?"

Good luck and success to you.

15. Samples of references.

1. N.N. Semenov. Paths to Unknown. Moscow, 1970, p. 486.
2. B.A. Knyazev and V.S.Cherkassky. Introduction to Experimental Data Processing. Novosibirsk, NGU, 1993, 35 p.
3. Kh.-I. Kuntse. Methods of Physical Measurements. Moscow, Mir, 1989, 213 p.
4. Laboratory Practice in Physics. Ed. L.L.Gol'din. Moscow, Nauka, 1983, p.703.
5. Yu.P. Weiberg. Technology of Scientific Work and Training. Moscow, 1928, p. 65.
6.G.L.Squires. Practical Physics. McGRAW-HILL : LONDON, 1968, 246p. 4