Excellence Award Judging

UNB FrederictonTuesday 12 May 2015

2

3

President Eddy Campbell

4

Thank You All

Ben Newling Michel Couturier

5

National Judging Committee

Judith Soon Jeff HoyleCarolineWhippey

PatrickWhippey

6

National Judging Committee

• Responsible for judging at CWSF

• Responsible for supporting judging process at the Regional Science Fairs

• Ensures integrity and consistency in judging

• Educates about research ethics & academic integrity

• Assesses compliance with YSC research policies

7

Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel

Ken ElliottBen Newling Michel Couturier Jacques-Yves Gautier

CWSF 2015 Fredericton CWSF 2016 Montreal

CWSF 2017 Regina

David Lowther Wilson Wong Pierre-Phillipe Ouimet Mark Brigham

CWSF 2016 Montreal

Ted Mathie

8

Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel

Plus the National Judging Committee

Dianne Fraser James Grant Mark Dzurko

CWSF Administrative Team

9

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.

10

Where are the Finalists From?

11

Judging Task

• To be fair

• To be sensitive

• To be comprehensive

• To be a positive role model

12

Excellence Awards

Medal Number Grade CategoryGold 10 Junior 7 – 8Silver 20 Intermediate 9 -10Bronze 40 Senior 11-12

13

Judges Orientation

From To Event

4:00 4:30 Registration for Excellence Award Chairs only

4:40 5:10 Orientation for Excellence Award Chairs – Jeff Hoyle

4:00 6:00 Excellence Awards Chairs practise entering the marks.

4:30 5:30 Registration for all remaining judges

5:00 6:30 Supper. Sit at Morning Judging Team TablesReview morning judging process

6:30 7:15 Orientation for Excellence Award Judges – Judith Soon

7:30 8:00 Orientation for three afternoon judging activities

8:00 10:00 View projects without the finalistsReview log books and displayPrepare questions for tomorrowView extra projects in addition to your own.

Monday

14

Judging Timetable

Start End Event

7:00 am 8:30 am Continental breakfast. Please arrive by 8:00 am

8:20 8:50 Orientation in Teams. Attendance is mandatory, even if your first judging slot is empty

9:00 12:30 Excellence Award judging

12:15 12:45 Lunch for judges without a 12:00 appointment.

12:30 2:15 Lunch and discussion in judging teams.

2:15 Deadline for entry of results into data base

2:15 2:25 Musical Chairs. Move to Afternoon Judging Table

2:30 5:30 Afternoon judging starts. Three different judging activities take place simultaneously.

3:30 8:00 Judges` Reception hosted by UNB in Memorial Hall

Tuesday

15

Judging Criteria

Criteria Weight %Scientific Thought 50Originality & Creativity 33Communication 17

Visual displayOral presentationProject ReportLogbook

16

Judging Process – Before Lunch• All interviews are scheduled, 9:00am – 12:30pm

• Every team has a Chair: 4 judges assess 7 projects each

• Judging periods 30 minutes:

20 minute interview with finalists; 10 minute write-up.

• A bell will be played at the 20 minute mark, and at the 30 minute mark to remind you of the time.

• Each finalist is judged four times

• If there is a fifth judge, pair up with another judge but evaluate each finalist separately

• Give the full 20 minute interview.

17

Please Sign your Name

Be sure to sign your name on the

student’s timetable when you meet

with each student.

18

Judging Process During Lunch• Teams of 4 judges discuss and rank projects over lunch

• Each team member has an equal voice

• Decisions are made by consensus

• Each project receives an appropriate score, composed of Level (1 – 4) and Rating (0 – 9)

• Enter results into Database.

• Deadline: 2:15 pm. If you spend more than 5 minutes logging in, please get help immediately!

• Give all paperwork to Judging Administration

19

Judging Rubric 1Part A Scientific Thought 50%

Experiment Innovation Study

Level 1 - LowReplicate 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 - FairExtend 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 - GoodDevise 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 - ExcellentDevise 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.

20

Part B: Originality and Creativity 33%

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 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.

Judging Rubric 2

21

Part C: Communication 17%Communication is based on four elements:

visual display, oral presentation, project report with background research, and logbook

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 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

Judging Rubric 3

22

Judging Form

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 - 4 Rating (HML)

Part B: Originality & Creativity

Level 1 - 4 Rating (HML)

Part C: Communication

Level 1 - 4 Rating (HML)

Judging Notes

2 H

3 M

4 M

Graphing is weak. Spelling errors on board. Strong lab notebook.

Unaware of def. of Kinetic Energy

Has not heard of statistics or error bars.

Well presented speech

23

Worksheet

Consensus Scores – Scientific ThoughtAfter 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 (0 – 9) in the right hand column .Note: Consensus values are determined through team discussion, not by mathematical calculation (e.g. mean, median, mode)Enter the consensus values for each project.

Judge Consensus

Level RatingProject Abbott Baker Combes Dawkins Elm

010204

010205

010206

010209

010211

010214

010220

L3 M 2 H 2 L 3 M 3 3 2

3 M 2 L 2 M 2 L 2 L 2 3

Repeat for: (b) Originality and Creativity (c) Communication

Enter these results

24

Mentorship - 1Level Description

0 I did not receive any mentoring.

1 I exchanged a few emails or phone calls, and/or met with my mentor once or twice to discuss my ideas.

2 I had occasional contact with my mentor by email or phone, and/or met occasionally with my mentor who provided some advice or materials.

3 I 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.

4 I 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.

5 I 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.

25

Mentorship - 2

• All professional scientists receive extensive mentoring.

• Read the section Projects – Mentorship on the CWSF website

• Does the student have a good grasp of the project, and did he/she do the work?

• Do not discount a project just because it was mentored.

26

Non-Disclosure Agreement

• Judging information is confidential and is not to be 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 e.g. Twitter, Facebook.

27

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

28

Keep All Paper

PLEASE!

DO NOT

TAKE ANY PAPER AWAY

All paper is sorted and filed for a year

29

Finalist Support

Caroline Whippey

30

Interacting With Students

• Be constructive

• Do not give the students false hope

• Every project is to be enjoyed and valued

• Never discuss the projects in the exhibit hall when finalists are present

31

Ambassadors

• Dressed in UV shirts

• All are previous winners at the CWSF

• Support students and resolve any issues

– My Judge has not shown up

– My computer just died

– I am not feeling well

32

Wireless Password

• useridTBA

• password TBA

33

Questions

?

34

Orientation for Afternoon Judgingis next

Judging Task Presenter (s) Location

Special Awards Ben Newling Michel Couturier Jacques Yves Gauthier

Stay seated

Challenge Awards Pierre-Phillippe Ouimet NN in the Exhibit Hall

Cusp Judging Caroline Whippey WW in the Exhibit Hall

35

Special Awards

Please stay at your table

Ben Newling, Michel Couturier

Jacques Yves Gauthier

36

Challenge Awards

If your afternoon assignment is:

a Challenge Team

Please go to the UNB Booth in the Exhibit Hall on Level 4

with Pierre-Phillippe Ouimet

37

Cusp Judging

If your afternoon assignment is:

a Cusp Team

Go to the Long Hall on Level 4

with Caroline Whippey

38

Questions Later TonightGo to the Judging Booth

[Insert a picture of it here]

39

Thank You

for your contribution

to the Canada Wide

Science Fair