slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Judging

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
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
slide1

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

slide10

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
excellence awards

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

judging criteria
Judging Criteria

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
  • 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
  • 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 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.

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

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

Show the Playbook screen here

feedback during judging
Feedback During Judging

*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
  • 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

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

lunch
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.

afternoon judging
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
excellence award cusp judging
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
excellence award cusp judging 1
Excellence Award Cusp Judging 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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
  • 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

Individual Judge

010205

3

010220

2

030209

1

4 more projects

special award final result
Special Award Final Result

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
  • 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
  • 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

Individual Judge

02 Energy

3

020205

020320

2

020109

1

4 more projects

challenge award final result
Challenge Award Final Result

02 Energy

020109

Ireland

Liquid Solar Cells

020205

Jones

Wind Turbines – Friend or Foe?

celebration judging 1
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

celebration judging 2
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
ambassadors
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
mentorship 2
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.
non disclosure agreement
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.
conflict of interest
Conflict of Interest

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

PLEASE

DO NOT

TAKE ANY PAPER AWAY

All paper is sorted and filed for a year

judging 101
Judging 101

A Dramatic Presentation

Patrick & Caroline Whippey

the judge as seen by
The Judge as seen by…

Fellow Judges

Finalists

slide62
Oops !

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

Viewer Discretion is advised.

over enthusiastic judge
Over-enthusiastic Judge
  • do not give finalists false hope
  • “I enjoyed meeting you.”
  • “I particularly liked….”
sarcastic judge
Sarcastic Judge
  • 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
  • Never discuss the projects in the exhibit hall where finalists are present
helpful feedback
“Helpful” Feedback
  • Give constructive feedback: balance positive and negative
  • Encourage, encourage, encourage
in summary
In Summary

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

Please help us make that happen!

thank you again
Thank You Again !

Roy Golsteyn

CWSF Chief Judge

Marc Roussel

CWSF Deputy Chief Judge

ad