Reference no: EM13854393

Reading research papers ("primary articles") is partly a matter of experience and skill, and partly learning the specific vocabulary of a field. First of all, DON'T PANIC! If you approach it step by step, even an impossible-looking paper can be understood. Don't assume that you should be able to understand the paper on just one or two readings. Truly understanding an article may take many reads.

1.) Skim the article. What is the basic idea in the paper? You're not trying to understand it at this stage, but just get the general gist.

2.) Comprehension and vocabulary. These can be handled separately (vocab first), but I find it easier to tackle both at the same time. Look up words and phrases that are unfamiliar in a geological dictionary. Work slowly, section by section. For instance:

• In the Introduction, note how the context is set. What larger question is this a part of? The author should summarize and comment on previous research, and you should distinguish between previous research and the actual current study. What is the hypothesis of the paper and the ways this will be tested?

• In the Methods, try to get a clear picture of what was done at each step. What was actually measured? You may want to make an outline and/or sketch of the procedures and instruments. Keep notes of your questions; some of them may be simply technical, but others may point to more fundamental considerations that you will use for reflection and criticism below.

• In the Results look carefully at the figures and tables, as they are the heart of most papers. A scientist will often read the figures and tables before deciding whether it is worthwhile to read the rest of the article! What does it mean to "understand" a figure? You understand a figure when you can redraw it and explain it in plain English words.

• The Discussion contains the conclusions that the author would like to draw from the data. In some papers, this section has a lot of interpretation and is very important. In any case, this is usually where the author reflects on the work and its meaning in relation to other findings and to the field in general.

3.) Reflection and criticism. After you understand the article and can summarize it, then you can return to broader questions and draw your own conclusions. It is very useful to keep track of your questions as you go along, returning to see whether they have been answered. Often, the simple questions may contain the seeds of very deep thoughts about the work.
 
ASSIGNMENT:

Your answers may be in point form, either typed or handwritten and should be long enough to adequately answer the questions. Please pay attention to the clarity of your writing as well.

Introduction:

• What is the overall purpose of the research?
• How does the research fit into the context of its field? Is it, for example, attempting to settle a controversy? show the validity of a new technique? open up a new field of inquiry?
• Do you agree with the author's rationale for studying the question in this way?

Methods:

• Were the measurements appropriate for the questions the researcher was approaching?
• Often, researchers need to use "indicators" because they cannot measure something directly--for example, using seismic velocities to indicate composition. Were the measures in this research clearly related to the variables in which the researchers (or you) were interested?

Results:

• What is the one major finding?
• Were enough of the data presented so that you feel you can judge for yourself how the experiment turned out?
• Did you see patterns or trends in the data that the author did not mention? Were there problems that were not addressed?

Discussion:

• Do you agree with the conclusions drawn from the data?
• Are these conclusions over-generalized or appropriately careful?
• Are there other factors that could have influenced, or accounted for, the results?
• What further experiments could you think of to continue the research or to answer remaining questions?

Attachment:- Geology.rar