1. Lake Roosevelt High School Imagine Tomorrow My View and Quick Thoughts – Competition becoming more theoretical – Fewer hands on projects scoring high enough to place. Teams dominating with narratives that follow the scoring guidelines. I feel they have a theory with no way to test in the real world. This may just be me complaining as our projects have a great deal of hands on fabricating which is messy. Not all judges see the work in the same way – See judges score sheets.

2. Remote Site Energy Evaluation No Award - 2014 The team all obtained their Ham radio License and fabricated remote site energy evaluation sensors that reported their data from the remote location back to the school using Ham Radio Packet Data protocols. We were looking at the possibility of developing alternative energy on reservation lands. The project scored well with most judges but it only takes one or two judges to take you out of the awards. That is fine, but I don’t think students are always rewarded for fabrication as the awards went to theoretical projects in the technology category in 2014. We needed more time I suppose to gather more data from the field sites.

3. Judging Project Objective (25 points) Does the project have a clear objective? Is the objective relevant to the competition topic? Is the solution workable? Acceptable to the potential user? Economically feasible? Could the solution be utilized successfully in design of a project or product? Creative Research, Ability, and Originality (25 points) Does the project show creative ability and originality: In the approach to solving the problem? In the use or redesign of existing equipment? In the construction or design of new equipment? Inquiry and Analysis (25 points) Is the question or problem stated clearly and unambiguously? Was the problem sufficiently limited to allow a plausible approach? Were the procedures/methods well thought out and organized, resulting in a plan for obtaining a solution? If appropriate, are the results and supporting data presented using quantifiable numbers and statistical analysis? Does the team recognize the project’s limitations? Does the team have an idea of what further research is warranted? Thoroughness (15 points) How completely was the problem covered? Is the team familiar with scientific literature in the studied field and does it have documented background research? Was there adequate data collected to support the conclusions? Were conclusions based upon multiple trials, models, and/or tests? Is the team aware of other theories or approaches? Do conclusions and/or data analysis describe possible errors or flaws? Are references identified? Presentation (10 points) How clearly does the team discuss its project and explain t he background and methods? How clearly are the results (including supporting data) p resented? How clearly are the conclusions presented? How well does the project display explain the project? Is the display creative and pleasing to look at? Scrap Power 2Site Evaluation 1723 1819 2018 2122 24 22 25 2322 2421 2524 2523 2522 Average 22.0022.08 4th PlaceNo Award

16. Our Native Table Inspiration Award Scrap Power 2 4 th Place Award Technology We tryto make an interactive display with our Imagine Tomorrow Projects. Some judges really like the display, some only want the narrative. I consider culture and art to be an important part of STEM and view our work as STEAM or even CSTEAM when working on projects that affect local cultures.