Judging
Download
1 / 69

Judging - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 113 Views
  • Uploaded on

Judging. Lethbridge. Tuesday 14 May 2013. Thank You All. Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge. Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge. Location. Exhibits – 1 st Choice Savings Centre. National Judging Committee. Judith Soon Chair. Jeff Hoyle Vice- Chair. Caroline Whippey. Patrick

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Judging' - clark


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Judging

Lethbridge

Tuesday 14 May 2013


Thank you all

Thank You All

Roy Golsteyn

CWSF Chief Judge

Marc Roussel

CWSF Deputy Chief Judge


Location

Location

Exhibits – 1st Choice Savings Centre


National judging committee

National Judging Committee

Judith Soon

Chair

Jeff Hoyle

Vice-Chair

Caroline

Whippey

Patrick

Whippey


National judging committee1

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


Canada wide judging advisory panel

Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel

Roy Golsteyn

Marc Roussel

Edwin Tam

Don Thomas

Ben Newling

CWSF 2013

CWSF 2014

CWSF 2015

Plus the members of the National Judging Committee


Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel

Dianne Fraser

Q.O.P.

James Grant

I.T.

Mark Dzurko

CWSF2010

Plus the members of the National Judging Committee


Judging at cwsf

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.


Numbering the projects

02 03 16

Numbering the Projects

Energy - Senior - Project 16


Ordering the projects

Projects ordered by Challenge Awards

01Discovery

02 Energy

03Environment

04 Health

05 Information

06 Innovation

07 Resources

Ordering the Projects


Judging task
Judging Task

  • To be fair

  • To be sensitive

  • To be comprehensive

  • To be a positive role model


Preparation
Preparation

  • Check your Registration information is complete

  • Visit 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


Judges orientation

Monday 13 May 2013

Judges Orientation


Judging timetable 1

Tuesday 14 May 2013

Judging Timetable - 1


Judging timetable 2

Tuesday 14 May 2013

Judging Timetable - 2


Excellence awards

Excellence Awards


Judging criteria
Judging Criteria category

Evaluation of Excellence Awards

  • Scientific thought (50%)

  • Originality & Creativity (33%)

  • Communication (17%)

    • Visual display

    • Oral presentation

    • Project report

    • Logbook


Judging excellence awards 1
Judging Excellence Awards - 1 category

  • 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


Judging excellence awards 2
Judging Excellence Awards - 2 category

  • 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





Project judging form 4

Use the rubric categoryto 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.

Project Judging Form - 4

3

H

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

2

M

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

4

M


Judging team worksheet

Consensus Scores – Scientific Thought category

Judging Team Worksheet

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.

3

2

M

2

H

2

L

3

M

3

L

3

3

M

2

L

2

M

2

L

2

L

3

2

Enter into Playbook

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


Entering team results
Entering Team Results category

Show the Playbook screen here


Feedback during judging
Feedback During Judging category

*New this Year*

  • 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.


Feedback during judging 2
Feedback During Judging - 2 category

  • 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.


Please sign your name
Please Sign your Name category

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


Lunch
Lunch category

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.


Afternoon judging
Afternoon Judging category

  • 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


  • Excellence award cusp judging
    Excellence Award Cusp Judging category

    • 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


    Excellence award cusp judging 1
    Excellence Award Cusp Judging 1 category

    Individual Judge

    Working with the Team Captain, enter the project numbers to be judged,

    as assigned by the Category Leader

    8

    010205

    010220

    5

    030209

    1

    5 more projects


    Excellence awards cusp judging 2
    Excellence Awards Cusp Judging 2 category

    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)

    8

    7

    3

    1

    2

    4

    5

    8

    6

    4

    3

    2

    1

    7

    1

    more

    col

    6

    8

    5

    2

    1

    3

    7

    7

    8

    5

    2

    3

    4

    6

    7

    6

    8

    1

    2

    4

    3

    6

    8

    4

    2

    1

    7

    5

    7

    8

    4

    1

    2

    3

    5


    Excellence awards final cusp ranking
    Excellence Awards – Final Cusp Ranking category

    010103

    Sleep on This

    020106

    Wind Turbines Noise Stress

    030119

    Heavy Metal Mitigation

    010115

    Does An Electric Field Affect Plant Growth?

    070108

    Seed preconditioning to increase crop yield

    060111

    Can Tires Replace Furnace Oil?

    040102

    Can Your Diet Prevent Alzheimers?

    050109

    Distraction


    Interdisciplinary awards 1

    Interdisciplinary Awards - 1 category

    Each Finalist can self-nominate for up to three Interdisciplinary Awards

    • Examples

    • The Manning Innovation Achievement Awards

    • Renewable Energy Award

    • Canadian Stockholm Junior Water Prize


    Interdisciplinary awards 2

    Interdisciplinary Awards - 2 category

    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.


    Interdisciplinary awards 3
    Interdisciplinary Awards - 3 category

    Round One

    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


    Interdisciplinary awards 4
    Interdisciplinary Awards - 4 category

    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


    Project results

    Interdisciplinary Award - 5 category

    060102

    Frost Buster

    Project Results

    Madalon Burnett

    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.

    Project on melting ice. Does not know what Latent Heat means

    Top 20% go on to Round 2


    Interdisciplinary award final result

    Renewable Energy Award category

    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

    Interdisciplinary Award Final Result

    010112

    Albert Atkinson

    A Better Air Filter

    060105

    Barbara Bull

    Using Microbes to Remove Metals

    Yardlee Yates


    Special awards

    Special Awards category

    • Judging based on the Excellence Awards

    • Self-nomination not required

    • Examples

    • Canadian Association of Physicists Prize

    • Award for Excellence in Astronomy


    Special award judging 1
    Special Award Judging - 1 category

    • 2:00 pm Meet at your tables

    • Review the list of highest ranked projects who are eligible

    • Interview the highest ranking candidates


    Special award judging 2
    Special Award Judging - 2 category

    Individual Judge

    010205

    3

    010220

    2

    030209

    1

    4 more projects


    Special award final result
    Special Award Final Result category

    CAP Physics Prize

    Senior

    Canadian Association of Physicists

    An outstanding project in the Physical and Mathematical Sciences related to Physics

    010306

    Gryb

    Carbon Nanotubes

    010315

    Hammond

    Luminescence in Rare Earths


    Challenge awards
    Challenge Awards category

    • 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


    Challenge award judging 1
    Challenge Award Judging - 1 category

    • 2:00 pm Meet at your tables

    • Review the list of highest ranked projects who are eligible

    • Interview the highest ranking candidates


    Challenge award judging 2
    Challenge Award Judging 2 category

    Individual Judge

    02 Energy

    3

    020205

    020320

    2

    020109

    1

    4 more projects


    Challenge award final result
    Challenge Award Final Result category

    02 Energy

    020109

    Ireland

    Liquid Solar Cells

    020205

    Jones

    Wind Turbines – Friend or Foe?


    Celebration judging 1
    Celebration Judging 1 category

    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


    Celebration judging 2
    Celebration Judging - 2 category

    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


    Ambassadors
    Ambassadors category

    • 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


    Mentorship 1
    Mentorship - 1 category


    Mentorship 2
    Mentorship - 2 category

    • 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.


    Non disclosure agreement
    Non-Disclosure Agreement category

    • 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.


    Conflict of interest
    Conflict of Interest category

    IF YOU

    • are related to the finalist

    • have judged the project before

    • have mentored the project

    • have other potential conflicts of interest

    THEN

    You must consult the Chief Judge


    Keep all paper
    Keep All Paper category

    PLEASE

    DO NOT

    TAKE ANY PAPER AWAY

    All paper is sorted and filed for a year


    Judging 101
    Judging 101 category

    A Dramatic Presentation

    Patrick & Caroline Whippey


    The judge as seen by
    The Judge as seen by… category

    Fellow Judges

    Finalists


    Oops ! category

    The following are based on real events, and they have all happened.

    Viewer Discretion is advised.


    Over enthusiastic judge
    Over-enthusiastic Judge category

    • do not give finalists false hope

    • “I enjoyed meeting you.”

    • “I particularly liked….”


    Sarcastic judge
    Sarcastic Judge category

    • this is not a Msc/PhD examination

    • do not belittle - be joyful, not judgmental

    • Every project is to be enjoyed and valued


    Insensitive judge
    Insensitive Judge category

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


    Helpful feedback
    “Helpful” Feedback category

    • Give constructive feedback: balance positive and negative

    • Encourage, encourage, encourage


    In summary
    In Summary category

    We want every finalist to finish judging and say, “Wow, that was a fantastic experience”

    Please help us make that happen!


    Questions
    Questions? category


    Thank you again
    Thank You Again ! category

    Roy Golsteyn

    CWSF Chief Judge

    Marc Roussel

    CWSF Deputy Chief Judge


    ad