1. NATIONAL CHILDREN’S SCIENCE CONGRESS
EVALUATION

2. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Originality of idea and concept: A unique or novel project idea which attempts to answer a specific question (a hypothesis driven by curiosity to understand any concept related to focal theme) The idea should not be an exact replication of model projects as printed in Activity Guide Book A proper explanation of origin of the idea may be enquired by the evaluator(s)

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Relevance of the project to the theme: This section focuses on how the project is relevant and linked to the focal theme / subtheme

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Scientific understanding of the issue: Refers to the extent of knowledge (scientific area, basic principles and concepts etc.) the child scientist has in relation to the project idea

5. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Data collection: Systematic collection of information (qualitative and/or quantitative) using relevant tools - experimental data, interviews, surveys (socio-economic / ecological), case studies etc Sample size should be statistically relevant and sufficient to support the issues under study

6. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Analysis: This includes tabulation, categorization / classification, and simple statistics as applicable to the study

7. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Experimentation / validation: Conducting of experiments / field study and validation applying simple methods of science Experiment need not be very complex or sophisticated but could be simple, self- developed and inexpensive too Adequate importance should be given to the rigour of the process

8. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Interpretation and problem solving attempt: To what extent the group has addressed the proposed hypothesis and objectives through the project

9. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Team work: It refers to work division, cooperation and sharing between and beyond the group

10. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Background correction (Only for District level): In this case the background of the children is verified like geographical location of their school, village, town etc. in relation to infrastructure, information and other input related facilities available with them The logic is that these children must get some weightage in comparison to the children from comparatively advantageous locations Non-school going children and CWD also qualify for the weightage under this criterion

11. EVALUATION CRITERIA Report and Presentation:
Written Report and Oral Presentation are evaluated separately
Reports are to be evaluated for clarity of the objectives, design of methodology, experimental or survey design, systematic presentation of data, tabulation of data, graphical representation; Log Book, authenticated with the signature of the guide on a regular basis, is mandatory
Oral presentation would be evaluated on the basis of the interaction with the evaluators, presentation of charts / posters, log book and any other supporting material

12. EVALUATION CRITERIA Follow up Action Plan (Only for State level):
The child scientists should try to find out scientific solution to the identified problem;
Has the group conveyed the message to the community?
How was it communicated?
Will effort continue to involve more people till the problem is solved?
Was any action plan suggested?
Credit shall be given for similar efforts

13. EVALUATORS
Child scientists are from years age group, who needs encouragement
Understand their capabilities & capacities and provide constructive inputs & positive feedback
Appreciate & value efforts, innovativeness & confidence
They should return motivated & intellectually rich
Evaluate subject matter, scientific content & not gadgets, models or oratory skill
Avoid unwarranted comments, comparison with seniors, distraction during presentation
Interact, but do not test what they do not know rather help in bringing out what they know

14. EVALUATORS’ CRITERIA
Priority for evaluators will be expertise and experience in subjects related to Focal Theme and /or Sub Themes having authoritative and field based knowledge, including ex-Child Scientists working in the field of academia or pursuing research / post-graduation in STEM / subject related to the Focal theme Evaluators should have prior exposure to the CSC or otherwise would have worked child-centric projects and have exposure to working with children Evaluators should not be members of any state academic or organizing committee for that particular year Parents of children or Guides of projects participating in CSC in the ensuing year cannot act as an evaluator at any level

15. District and State levels
CRITERIA FOR CWD
Evaluation Criterion for the projects under CWD Category (Subject to change)
Distribution of Weightage in % over Total Marks that will be scored by the child):
Category-A: Normal children doing projects on PWD
Category-B: Heterogeneous group (normal plus CWDs)
Category-C: Homogeneous CWDs
Category
District and State levels
National level A 05 B 10 C 20

16. THAN’Q