Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Judging PowerPoint Presentation

Judging

141 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Judging

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

  1. Judging Lethbridge Tuesday 14 May 2013

  2. Thank You All Roy Golsteyn CWSF Chief Judge Marc Roussel CWSF Deputy Chief Judge

  3. Location Exhibits – 1st Choice Savings Centre

  4. National Judging Committee Judith Soon Chair Jeff Hoyle Vice-Chair Caroline Whippey Patrick Whippey

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  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. 02 03 16 Numbering the Projects Energy - Senior - Project 16

  10. Projects ordered by Challenge Awards 01Discovery 02 Energy 03Environment 04 Health 05 Information 06 Innovation 07 Resources Ordering the Projects

  11. Judging Task • To be fair • To be sensitive • To be comprehensive • To be a positive role model

  12. 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

  13. Monday 13 May 2013 Judges Orientation

  14. Tuesday 14 May 2013 Judging Timetable - 1

  15. Tuesday 14 May 2013 Judging Timetable - 2

  16. 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

  17. Judging Criteria Evaluation of Excellence Awards • Scientific thought (50%) • Originality & Creativity (33%) • Communication (17%) • Visual display • Oral presentation • Project report • Logbook

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. Project Judging Form - 1

  21. Project Judging Form - 2

  22. Project Judging Form - 3

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. Entering Team Results Show the Playbook screen here

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

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

  29. 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.

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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.

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. 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

  40. 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

  41. Special Awards • Judging based on the Excellence Awards • Self-nomination not required • Examples • Canadian Association of Physicists Prize • Award for Excellence in Astronomy

  42. 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

  43. Special Award Judging - 2 Individual Judge 010205 3 010220 2 030209 1 4 more projects

  44. 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

  45. 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

  46. 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

  47. Challenge Award Judging 2 Individual Judge 02 Energy 3 020205 020320 2 020109 1 4 more projects