Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Judging Lethbridge Tuesday 14 May 2013. 2 3 4 5 Thank You All Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Judging Lethbridge Tuesday 14 May 2013. 2 3 4 5 Thank You All Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge."— Presentation transcript:

1 Judging Lethbridge Tuesday 14 May 2013

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5 Thank You All Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge

6 6 Exhibits – 1 st Choice Savings Centre Location

7 7 National Judging Committee Judith Soon Chair Jeff Hoyle Vice-Chair Caroline Whippey Patrick Whippey

8 8 National Judging Committee Responsible for judging at CWSF Responsible for supporting judging process at Regional Science Fairs Ensures integrity and consistency in judging Educates about research ethics & academic integrity Assesses compliance with YSC research policies

9 9 Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel Don ThomasEdwin Tam Plus the members of the National Judging Committee Roy GolsteynBen Newling CWSF 2014CWSF 2015CWSF 2013 Marc Roussel

10 10 Dianne Fraser Q.O.P. James Grant I.T. Mark Dzurko CWSF 2010 Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel Plus the members of the National Judging Committee

11 11 Judging at CWSF CWSF is for and about the finalists The judging experience is the raison d’être The goal of the CJAP is to run a superb judging operation, and thus guarantee a successful CWSF.

12 12 Numbering the Projects 02 03 16 ChallengeCategoryCounter 01Discovery01Junior 7 - 801 02Energy02Intermediate 9 -1002 03Environment03Senior 11 - 1203 04Health04 05Information05 06Innovation06 07Resources07 Energy - Senior - Project 16

13 13 Ordering the Projects Projects ordered by Challenge Awards 01 Discovery 02 Energy 03 Environment 04 Health 05 Information 06 Innovation 07 Resources

14 14 Judging Task To be fair To be sensitive To be comprehensive To be a positive role model

15 15 Preparation Check your Registration information is complete Visit http://judging.youthscience.ca/http://judging.youthscience.ca/ Review all the pages on this site Review the Project Judging Form Read the Project Reports, available 1 week prior Prepare questions

16 16 Judges Orientation FromToEvent 3:30 pm3:50 pmRegistration for all Team Captains 4:00 pm5:00Orientation for all Team Captains, morning & afternoon 4:00 pm6:00Registration 5:006:30Supper. Sit at Morning Judging Team Tables Review morning judging process 6:307:30Judging Workshop in PE 250 7:308:00Sit at Afternoon Judging Team Tables. Review afternoon judging process 8:0010:00View projects without the finalists Review log books and display Prepare questions for tomorrow View extra projects in addition to your own. Monday 13 May 2013

17 17 Judging Timetable - 1 StartEndEvent 7:00 am8:30 amContinental breakfast and orientation in teams 8:208:50Orientation in Teams. Attendance is mandatory, even if your first judging slot is empty 9:0012:30Excellence Award and International judging 12:1512:30Lunch for judges without a 12:00 appointment. 12:301:45Lunch and discussion in judging teams 1:452:00Deadline for entry of results into data base 2:002:15Interdisciplinary Award Judges meet in teams 2:155:30Interdisciplinary Award Judging 2:002:15Special Awards judges meet in teams 2:153:30Special Awards judging Tuesday 14 May 2013

18 18 Judging Timetable - 2 StartEndEvent 2:152:30Cusp Judges meet in teams 2:305:30Cusp Judging 3:305:30Celebration Judging 5:306:00Upon leaving, hand in all paper work in the boxes provided. 5:305:40Finalists leave the judging hall Tuesday 14 May 2013

19 19 Participants compete against all others in their grade category 10 Gold - $700 20 Silver - $300 40 Bronze - $100 Awarded in each of Junior – grades 7-8 Intermediate – grades 9-10 Senior - grades 11 - 12 Excellence Awards

20 20 Judging Criteria Scientific thought(50%) Originality & Creativity(33%) Communication (17%) Visual display Oral presentation Project report Logbook Evaluation of Excellence Awards

21 21 Judging Excellence Awards - 1 All interviews are scheduled, 9:00am – 12:30pm Teams of 4 judges assess 7 projects each Judging periods of 30 minutes: 20 minute interview with finalists; 10 minute write-up Each finalist is judged four times Every team has a captain If there is a fifth judge, pair up with another judge but evaluate each finalist separately

22 22 Judging Excellence Awards - 2 12:30 pm – 1:45 pm over Lunch Teams of 4+ judges discuss and rank projects CONSENSUS - complete forms Each team member has an equal voice Each project receives an appropriate score, composed of Level (1 – 4) and Rating (0 – 9) Enter results into Database using the Playbooks Pass in all paperwork to Admin

23 23 Project Judging Form - 1 Part A Scientific Thought 50% ExperimentInnovationStudy Level 1 - Low Replicate a known experiment to confirm previous findings. Build a model or device to duplicate existing technology or to demonstrate a well-known physical theory or social/behavioural intervention. Existing published material is presented, unaccompanied by any analysis. Level 2 - Fair Extend a known experiment with modest improvements to the procedures, data gathering and possible applications. Improve or demonstrate new applications for existing technological systems, social or behavioural interventions, existing physical theories or equipment, and justify them. Existing published material is presented, accompanied by some modest analysis and/or a rudimentary study is undertaken that yields limited data that cannot support an analysis leading to meaningful results. Level 3 - Good Devise and carry out an original experiment. Identify the significant variables and attempt to control them. Analyze the results using appropriate arithmetic, graphical or statistical methods. Design and build innovative technology; or provide adaptations to existing technology or to social or behavioural interventions; extend or create new physical theory. Human benefit, advancement of knowledge, and/or economic applications should be evident. The study is based on systematic observations and a literature search. Appropriate analysis of some significant variable(s) is included, using arithmetic, statistical, or graphical methods. Qualitative and/or mixed methods study should include a detailed description of the procedures and/or techniques applied to gather and/or analyse the data (e.g. interviewing, observational fieldwork, constant comparative method, content analysis). Level 4 - Excellent Devise and carry out original experimental research in which most significant variables are identified and controlled. The data analysis is thorough and complete. Integrate several technologies, inventions, social/behavioural interventions or design and construct an innovative application that will have human and/or commercial benefit. The study correlates information from a variety of peer- reviewed publications and from systematic observations, and reveals significant new information, or original solutions to problems. Same criteria for analysis of significant variables and/or description of procedures/techniques as for Level 3.

24 24 Part B: Originality and Creativity 33% Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4 The project design is simple with little evidence of student imagination. It can be found in books or magazines The project design is simple with evidence of student imagination. It uses common resources or equipment. The topic is a current or common one. This imaginative project makes creative use of the available resources. It is well thought out, and some aspects are above average. This highly original project demonstrates a novel approach. It shows resourcefulness and creativity in the design, use of equipment, construction and/or the analysis. Project Judging Form - 2

25 25 Part C: Communication 17% Communication is based on four elements: visual display, oral presentation, project report with background research, and logbook Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4 Most or all of the four elements are simple, unsubstantial or incomplete. There is little evidence of attention to effective communication. In a pair project, one member may have dominated the discussion. Some of the four elements are simple, unsubstantiated or incomplete, but there is evidence of student attention to communication. In a pair project, one member may have made a stronger contribution to the project. All four elements are complete and demonstrate attention to detail and substance. The communication components are each well thought out and executed. In a pair project both members made an equitable contribution to the presentation. All four elements are complete and exceed reasonable expectations of a student at this grade. The visual display is logical and self-explanatory, and the exhibit is attractive and well presented. The project report and logbook are informative, clearly written and the bibliography extends beyond web-based articles. The oral presentation is clear, logical and enthusiastic. In a group project, both members contributed equitably and effectively to the presentation Project Judging Form - 3

26 26 Project Judging Form - 4 Use the rubric to assign a level to Parts A, B and C for the project. In addition to the Level, please assign a single letter rating: H (high), M (medium) or L (low) that reflects the quality of the project and its strength relative to the other projects you have assigned the same level. Note: Finalists will not see this sheet. Part A: Scientific Thought Level 1 - 4Rating (HML) Part B: Originality & Creativity Level 1 - 4Rating (HML) Part C: Communication Level 1 - 4Rating (HML) Judging Notes Notes on your verbal feedback 3H 2M 4M Graphing is weak. Spelling errors on board. Weak lab notebook I enjoyed your explanation of kinetic energy. You should work to strengthen your understanding of your graph, and learn about error bars. Explained Electric Current

27 27 Judging Team Worksheet Consensus Scores – Scientific Thought After filling in the judges’ names and project numbers, enter each judge’s level and rating (H,M or L) for each project. Following discussion of each project’s scoring by all team members, enter a consensus level (1 - 4) and rating (1 – 9) in the right hand column. Note: Consensus values are determined through team discussion, not by mathematical calculation (e.g. mean, median, mode) Use the Blackberry Playbook to enter the consensus values for each project. Judge Consensus LevelRating ProjectAbbottBakerCombesDawkinsElm 010204 010205 010206 010209 010211 010214 010220 L 3 M2H2L3M3 3 2 3M2L2M2L2L 2 3 Repeat for: (b) Originality and Creativity (c) Communication Enter into Playbook

28 28 Entering Team Results Show the Playbook screen here

29 29 Feedback During Judging Give feedback during judging at the end of each interview. Feedback is very important to the finalists! Remember: Encourage, encourage, encourage! Be constructive in your comments Balance a thing to improve with two positives about the project. *New this Year*

30 30 Feedback During Judging - 2 Make a note of the feedback you provided in the Judging Notes section of the Judging Form. e.g. suggested how to interpret the data better; suggested a book or article to be read; explained a concept poorly understood e.g. kinetic energy As long as any feedback is noted on the judging form, it can be included in the discussion prior to ranking. It should not have a substantial impact on the final results.

31 31 Please Sign your Name Be sure to sign your name on the finalist’s timetable before you leave each project.

32 32 Lunch We need to maximize the time spent in discussion. We will call your table number for lunch. We will ensure you spend only ten minutes in the line up. Discussions must be complete by 1:45 pm.

33 33 Afternoon Judging Five Judging Activities Cusp Judging: Review projects close to boundaries Top Gold Gold – Silver Silver – Bronze Bronze – no award Interdisciplinary Awards Special Awards Challenge Awards Celebration Judging

34 34 Excellence Award Cusp Judging Time: 2:30 – 5:30 pm Team Captains and Category Leaders meet at your tables for instructions. Interview projects on the Cusps: Top 6 Gold Gold – Silver boundary Silver – Bronze boundary Bronze – no award boundary

35 35 Excellence Award Cusp Judging 1 Working with the Team Captain, enter the project numbers to be judged, as assigned by the Category Leader Project NumberRank Comment Project NumberRank Comment Project NumberRank Comment 5 more projects 010205 8 0102205 0302091 Individual Judge

36 36 Excellence Awards Cusp Judging 2 Team Consensus Enter the Ranking (e.g. 1-8) of each project by each judge on your team. Through reasoned discussion, determine a consensus rank for each project highest (1) to lowest (8) Project Number Judge’s Name010304010316020305020314040306050308070304 Henry Higgins Ian Ibsen Janet James Kelly Kaczka Lorna Lewis Mandy Maclin Consensus Rank 8731245 8643217 6852137 7852346 7681243 6842175 7841235 1 more col

37 37 Excellence Awards – Final Cusp Ranking RankProject #Title (abbreviated) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 010103 020106 030119 010115 070108 060111 040102 050109 Wind Turbines Noise Stress Sleep on This Heavy Metal Mitigation Can Tires Replace Furnace Oil? Seed preconditioning to increase crop yield Can Your Diet Prevent Alzheimers? Distraction Does An Electric Field Affect Plant Growth?

38 38 Each Finalist can self-nominate for up to three Interdisciplinary Awards Interdisciplinary Awards - 1 Examples The Manning Innovation Achievement Awards Renewable Energy Award Canadian Stockholm Junior Water Prize

39 39 Interdisciplinary Awards - 2 Some projects will not be well matched to the criteria. Judge them with enthusiasm. Our emphasis is on celebrating the finalist’s achievement, not just on selecting the winner.

40 40 Interdisciplinary Awards - 3 Time: 2:00 – 3:30 First round interview is scheduled. First Interview starts at 2:00 pm Ten minutes per interview 6 interviews per judge maximum Each project is judged twice Eliminate the bottom 80% in round one Round One

41 41 Interdisciplinary Awards - 4 Repeat the Round 1 process on the remaining 20% A third round may be required for a few awards Final result is by consensus Complete paperwork and hand it in

42 42 Project Results Interdisciplinary Award - 5 Renewable Energy Award - Junior An outstanding project related to both energy and air quality with a demonstrated interest in environmental stewardship. Yes = Top 20%; No = Bottom 80% or the project does not meet the award criteria. Top 20% Round 1YesNo Comments 060102 Frost Buster Madalon Burnett Top 20% go on to Round 2 Project on melting ice. Does not know what Latent Heat means

43 43 Interdisciplinary Award Final Result Renewable Energy Award Junior An outstanding project related to both energy and air quality with a demonstrated interest in environmental stewardship. Please give the winner and one alternate Project #Name(s)Project Title 1 Alt 010112Albert AtkinsonA Better Air Filter 060105Barbara Bull Team LeaderSignature Yardlee Yates Using Microbes to Remove Metals

44 44 Special Awards Judging based on the Excellence Awards Self-nomination not required Examples Canadian Association of Physicists Prize Award for Excellence in Astronomy

45 45 Special Award Judging - 1 2:00 pm Meet at your tables Review the list of highest ranked projects who are eligible Interview the highest ranking candidates

46 46 Special Award Judging - 2 Project NumberMeets CriteriaYesNoRank Comment Project NumberMeets CriteriaYesNoRank Comment Project NumberMeets CriteriaYesNoRank Comment 4 more projects 0102053 0102202 0302091 Individual Judge

47 47 Special Award Final Result CAP Physics Prize Senior Canadian Association of Physicists An outstanding project in the Physical and Mathematical Sciences related to Physics Project #Name(s)Project Title 1 Alt 010306 010315 GrybCarbon Nanotubes Hammond Luminescence in Rare Earths

48 48 Challenge Awards Challenge Awards recognize the top project in each of the seven Canada Wide Youth Science Challenges in each Grade Category. –Junior - $500 and certificate –Intermediate - $750 and certificate –Senior - $1000 and certificate

49 49 Challenge Award Judging - 1 2:00 pm Meet at your tables Review the list of highest ranked projects who are eligible Interview the highest ranking candidates

50 50 Challenge Award Judging 2 Project NumberMeets CriteriaYesNoRank Comment Project NumberMeets CriteriaYesNoRank Comment Project NumberMeets CriteriaYesNoRank Comment 4 more projects 020205 3 0203202 020109 1 Individual Judge 02 Energy

51 51 Challenge Award Final Result 02 Energy Project #Name(s)Project Title 1 Alt 020109 020205 IrelandLiquid Solar Cells Jones Wind Turbines – Friend or Foe?

52 52 International Award Judging Done by an Excellence Award judging team in the morning. Recommend a Gold or possibly Silver Medal Be generous!

53 53 Celebration Judging 1 Typically about 80 finalists will not get judged at all during the afternoon for: Excellence Award Interdisciplinary Award Special Award Most will spend 2 hours without an interview We will give them two Celebration Judgings

54 54 Celebration Judging - 2 Many judges will finish judging by 4:00 pm Go to the Celebration Judging Table Select two projects from the list Visit those projects for 10 - 15 minutes Celebrate the work done Give as much feedback as you can – be constructive Encourage! Encourage! Encourage! Goal: Every finalist has two afternoon interviews

55 55 Ambassadors Dressed in UV shirts All are previous winners at the CWSF Support finalists and resolve any issues –My Judge has not shown up –My computer just died –I am not feeling well

56 56 Mentorship - 1 LevelDescription 0 I did not receive any mentoring. 1I exchanged a few emails or phone calls, and/or met with my mentor once or twice to discuss my ideas. 2I had occasional contact with my mentor by email or phone, and/or met occasionally with my mentor who provided some advice or materials. 3I had regular contact with my mentor by email or phone, and/or met regularly with my mentor who provided advice, materials, assistance with design/testing, or data analysis. 4I had regular face-to-face contact with my mentor and regular access to advice, materials, space, equipment, design/testing, or other personnel in a specialized facility. 5I worked closely with my mentor over an extended period of time to develop the project idea, plan and conduct the research/development, and analyze the results or test the innovation.

57 57 Mentorship - 2 All professional scientists receive extensive mentoring. Read the section Projects – Mentorship here: http://cwsf.youthscience.ca/fairs/current?tid=163 Does the finalist have a good grasp of the project, and did he/she do the work? Do not discount a project just because it was mentored.

58 58 Non-Disclosure Agreement Judging information is confidential and is not discussed outside the judging hall. Intellectual property belongs to finalists All digital notes and 5 page reports are to be deleted after judging is over Do NOT discuss judging matters on social media eg Twitter, Facebook.

59 59 Conflict of Interest are related to the finalist have judged the project before have mentored the project have other potential conflicts of interest THEN IF YOU You must consult the Chief Judge

60 60 Keep All Paper PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANY PAPER AWAY All paper is sorted and filed for a year

61 61 Judging 101 A Dramatic Presentation Patrick & Caroline Whippey

62 62 The Judge as seen by… 62 Fellow Judges Finalists

63 63 Oops ! 63 The following are based on real events, and they have all happened. Viewer Discretion is advised.

64 64 Over-enthusiastic Judge 64 do not give finalists false hope “I enjoyed meeting you.” “I particularly liked….”

65 65 Sarcastic Judge 65 this is not a Msc/PhD examination do not belittle - be joyful, not judgmental Every project is to be enjoyed and valued

66 66 Insensitive Judge 66 Never discuss the projects in the exhibit hall where finalists are present

67 67 “Helpful” Feedback 67 Give constructive feedback: balance positive and negative Encourage, encourage, encourage

68 68 In Summary 68 We want every finalist to finish judging and say, “Wow, that was a fantastic experience” Please help us make that happen!

69 69 Questions?

70 70 Thank You Again ! Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge


Download ppt "Judging Lethbridge Tuesday 14 May 2013. 2 3 4 5 Thank You All Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google