Judges’ Agenda for Saturday, February 18, 2023
8:00 AM
Judges’ check in at the UTRGV Edinburg Campus (Vackar College of Business Building)
· Breakfast
· Judging orientation (judges’ training).
· Review category and caucus group assignments (these will be sent out tomorrow).
9:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Category Judging for Junior and Senior Divisions with in-person interviews
By 1:00 PM
Judging teams discuss projects, reach consensus, and verify award winners in each category. Lunch is provided.
Dear Colleagues:
We ask for your participation to serve as a judge for middle school and high school
presentations for the 63rd RGV Regional Science & Engineering Fair (RSEF)
held Saturday, February 18. Winners will advance to the state competition
at Texas A&M in March and then to the Regeneron International Science
and Engineering Fair in Dallas, TX in May.
Please sign up at the link: Judge Registration Link as soon as possible before February 3rd
so that we may get a count. Breakfast and lunch will be provided for all judges.
More detailed information is below.
Thank you for your participation!
Sincerely,
and
Roni Louise Rentfro, Ed.D., M.S.I.S, B.S.
63rd RGV Regional Fair Special Awards Chair
956-371-4155
The following evaluation criteria are used for judging at the ISEF. As shown below, science and engineering have different criteria, each with five sections as well as suggested scoring for each section. Each section includes key items to consider for evaluation both before and after the interview.
Students are encouraged to design their posters in a clear and informative manner to allow pre-interview evaluation and to enable the interview to become an in-depth discussion. Judges should examine the student notebook and, if present, any special forms such as Form 1C (Regulated Research Institution/Industrial Setting) and Form 7 (Continuation of Projects). Considerable emphasis is placed on two areas: Creativity and Presentation, especially in the Interview section, and are discussed in more detail below.
Creativity: A creative project demonstrates imagination and inventiveness. Such projects often offer different perspectives that open up new possibilities or new alternatives. Judges should place emphasis on research outcomes in evaluating creativity.
Presentation/Interview: The interview provides the opportunity to interact with the finalists and evaluate their understanding of the project’s basic science, interpretation and limitations of the results and conclusions.
If the project was done at a research or industrial facility, the judge should determine the degree of independence of the finalist in conducting the project, which is documented on Form 1C.
If the project was completed at home or in a school laboratory, the judge should determine if the finalist received any mentoring or professional guidance.
If the project is a multi-year effort, the interview should focus ONLY on the current year’s work. Judges should review the project’s abstract and Form 7 (ISEF Continuation Projects) to clarify what progress was completed this year.
Please note that both team and individual projects are judged together, and projects should be judged only on the basis of their quality. However, all team members should demonstrate significant contributions to and an understanding of the project.
I. Research Question (10 pts)
___ clear and focused purpose
___ identifies contribution to field of study
___ testable using scientific methods
II. Design and Methodology (15 pts)
___ well designed plan and data collection methods
___ variables and controls defined, appropriate and complete
III. Execution: Data Collection, Analysis and Interpretation(20 pts)
___ systematic data collection and analysis
___ reproducibility of results
___ appropriate application of mathematical and statistical methods
___ sufficient data collected to support interpretation and conclusions
IV. Creativity (20 pts)
___ project demonstrates significant creativity in one or more of the above criteria
V. Presentation (35 pts)
a. Poster (10 pts)
___ logical organization of material
___ clarity of graphics and legends
___ supporting documentation displayed
b. Interview (25 pts)
___ clear, concise, thoughtful responses to questions
___ understanding of basic science relevant to project
___ understanding interpretation and limitations of results and conclusions
_ degree of independence in conducting project
___ recognition of potential impact in science, society and/or economics
___ quality of ideas for further research
___ for team projects, contributions to and understanding of project by all members
I. Research Problem (10 pts)
___ description of a practical need or problem to be solved
___ definition of criteria for proposed solution
___ explanation of constraints
II. Design and Methodology (15 pts)
___ exploration of alternatives to answer need or problem
___ identification of a solution
___ development of a prototype/model
III. Execution: Construction and Testing(20 pts)
___ prototype demonstrates intended design
___ prototype has been tested in multiple conditions/trials
___ prototype demonstrates engineering skill and completeness
IV. Creativity (20 pts)
___ project demonstrates significant creativity in one or more of the above criteria
V. Presentation (35 pts)
a. Poster (10 pts)
___logical organization of material
___clarity of graphics and legends
___ supporting documentation displayed
b. Interview (25 pts)
___ clear, concise, thoughtful responses to questions
___ understanding of basic science relevant to project
___ understanding interpretation and limitations of results and conclusions
___ degree of independence in conducting project
___ recognition of potential impact in science, society and/or economics
___ quality of ideas for further research
___ for team projects, contributions to and understanding of project by all members
Verified as current from: https://www.societyforscience.org/isef/grand-award/criteria/ 1-31-2023