Transcript Slide 1

Excellence Award Judging
Tuesday 12 May 2015
UNB Fredericton
2
President Eddy Campbell
3
Ben Newling
Michel Couturier
Thank You All
4
National Judging Committee
Judith Soon
Jeff Hoyle
Caroline
Whippey
Patrick
Whippey
5
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
6
Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel
CWSF 2015 Fredericton
Ben Newling
Michel Couturier
CWSF 2016 Montreal
David Lowther
Wilson Wong
CWSF 2016 Montreal
Ken Elliott
Jacques-Yves Gautier
CWSF 2017 Regina
Pierre-Phillipe Ouimet Mark Brigham Ted Mathie
7
Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel
CWSF Administrative Team
Dianne Fraser
James Grant
Mark Dzurko
Plus the National Judging Committee
8
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.
9
Where are the Finalists From?
10
Judging Task
• To be fair
• To be sensitive
• To be comprehensive
• To be a positive role model
11
Excellence Awards
Medal
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Number
10
20
40
Grade Category
Junior 7 – 8
Intermediate 9 -10
Senior 11-12
12
Judges Orientation
Monday
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 Tables
Review 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 finalists
Review log books and display
Prepare questions for tomorrow
View extra projects in addition to your own.
13
Judging Timetable
Tuesday
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
2:15
Lunch and discussion in judging teams.
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
14
Judging Criteria
Criteria
Scientific Thought
Originality & Creativity
Communication
Visual display
Oral presentation
Project Report
Logbook
Weight %
50
33
17
15
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.
16
Please Sign your Name
Be sure to sign your name on the
student’s timetable when you meet
with each student.
17
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
18
Judging Rubric 1
Part A Scientific Thought 50%
Experiment
Innovation
Study
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.
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.
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).
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 peerreviewed publications and from systematic
observations, and reveals significant new information,
or original solutions to problems. Same criteria for
analysis of significant variables and/or description19
of
procedures/techniques as for Level 3.
Level 2 - Fair
Extend a known experiment with modest
improvements to the procedures, data gathering
and possible applications.
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.
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.
Judging Rubric 2
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.
20
Judging Rubric 3
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
21
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
2
Level 1 - 4
Judging Notes
H
Rating (HML)
Part B: Originality & Creativity
3
Level 1 - 4
M
Rating (HML)
Part C: Communication
4
Level 1 - 4
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
M
Rating (HML)
22
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 (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
Baker
Combes
Dawkins
Rating
Project
Abbott
Elm
010204
3
M
2
H
2
L
3
M
3
L
3
2
010205
3
M
2
L
2
M
2
L
2
L
2
3
010206
010209
Enter
these
results
010211
010214
010220
Repeat for: (b) Originality and Creativity (c) Communication
23
Mentorship - 1
Level
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
24
test the innovation.
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.
25
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.
26
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
27
Keep All Paper
PLEASE!
DO NOT
TAKE ANY PAPER AWAY
All paper is sorted and filed for a year
28
Finalist Support
Caroline Whippey
29
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
30
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
31
Wireless Password
• userid
TBA
• password
TBA
32
Questions
?
33
Orientation for Afternoon Judging
is 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
34
Special Awards
Please stay at your table
Ben Newling, Michel Couturier
Jacques Yves Gauthier
35
Challenge Awards
If your afternoon assignment is:
a Challenge Team
Please go to the UNB Booth in the Exhibit Ha
on Level 4
with Pierre-Phillippe Ouimet
36
Cusp Judging
If your afternoon assignment is:
a Cusp Team
Go to the Long Hall on Level 4
with Caroline Whippey
37
Questions Later Tonight
Go to the Judging Booth
[Insert a picture of it here]
38
Thank You
for your contribution
to the Canada Wide
Science Fair
39