Upload
phillip-hunt
View
216
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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