1. Excellence Award Judging UNB Fredericton Tuesday 12 May 2015

2. 2

3. 3 President Eddy Campbell

4. 4 Thank You All Ben Newling Michel Couturier

5. 5 National Judging Committee Judith SoonJeff Hoyle Caroline Whippey Patrick Whippey

6. 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. 7 Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel Ken Elliott Ben NewlingMichel Couturier Jacques-Yves Gautier CWSF 2015 Fredericton CWSF 2016 Montreal CWSF 2017 Regina David LowtherWilson Wong Pierre-Phillipe Ouimet Mark Brigham CWSF 2016 Montreal Ted Mathie

8. 8 Canada Wide Judging Advisory Panel Plus the National Judging Committee Dianne Fraser James Grant Mark Dzurko CWSF Administrative Team

9. 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. 10 Where are the Finalists From?

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

12. 12 Excellence Awards MedalNumberGrade Category Gold10Junior 7 – 8 Silver20Intermediate 9 -10 Bronze40Senior 11-12

13. 13 Judges Orientation FromToEvent 4:004:30Registration for Excellence Award Chairs only 4:405:10Orientation for Excellence Award Chairs – Jeff Hoyle 4:006:00Excellence Awards Chairs practise entering the marks. 4:305:30Registration for all remaining judges 5:006:30Supper. Sit at Morning Judging Team Tables Review morning judging process 6:307:15Orientation for Excellence Award Judges – Judith Soon 7:308:00Orientation for three afternoon judging activities 8:0010:00View projects without the finalists Review log books and display Prepare questions for tomorrow View extra projects in addition to your own. Monday

14. 14 Judging Timetable StartEndEvent 7:00 am 8:30 amContinental breakfast. Please arrive by 8:00 am 8:20 8:50Orientation in Teams. Attendance is mandatory, even if your first judging slot is empty 9:0012:30Excellence Award judging 12:1512:45Lunch for judges without a 12:00 appointment. 12:30 2:15Lunch and discussion in judging teams. 2:15Deadline for entry of results into data base 2:15 2:25Musical Chairs. Move to Afternoon Judging Table 2:30 5:30Afternoon judging starts. Three different judging activities take place simultaneously. 3:30 8:00Judges` Reception hosted by UNB in Memorial Hall Tuesday

15. 15 Judging Criteria CriteriaWeight % Scientific Thought50 Originality & Creativity33 Communication17 Visual display Oral presentation Project Report Logbook

16. 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. 17 Please Sign your Name Be sure to sign your name on the student’s timetable when you meet with each student.

18. 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. 19 Judging Rubric 1 Part A Scientific Thought 50% ExperimentInnovationStudy 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. Level 2 - Fair Extend 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 - 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. 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 - Excellent Devise 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. 20 Part B: Originality and Creativity 33% Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 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. 21 Part C: Communication 17% Communication is based on four elements: visual display, oral presentation, project report with background research, and logbook Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 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. 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 - 4Rating (HML) Part B: Originality & Creativity Level 1 - 4Rating (HML) Part C: Communication Level 1 - 4Rating (HML) Judging Notes 2H 3M 4M 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. 23 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 LevelRating ProjectAbbottBakerCombesDawkinsElm 010204 010205 010206 010209 010211 010214 010220 L 3 M2H2L3M3 3 2 3M2L2M2L2L 2 3 Repeat for: (b) Originality and Creativity (c) Communication Enter these results

24. 24 Mentorship - 1 LevelDescription 0 I did not receive any mentoring. 1I exchanged a few emails or phone calls, and/or met with my mentor once or twice to discuss my ideas. 2I had occasional contact with my mentor by email or phone, and/or met occasionally with my mentor who provided some advice or materials. 3I 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. 4I 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. 5I 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. 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. 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. 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. 28 Keep All Paper PLEASE! DO NOT TAKE ANY PAPER AWAY All paper is sorted and filed for a year

29. 29 Finalist Support Caroline Whippey

30. 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. 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. 32 Wireless Password useridTBA passwordTBA

33. 33 Questions ?

34. 34 Orientation for Afternoon Judging is next Judging TaskPresenter (s)Location Special AwardsBen Newling Michel Couturier Jacques Yves Gauthier Stay seated Challenge AwardsPierre-Phillippe OuimetNN in the Exhibit Hall Cusp JudgingCaroline WhippeyWW in the Exhibit Hall

35. 35 Special Awards Please stay at your table Ben Newling, Michel Couturier Jacques Yves Gauthier

36. 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. 37 Cusp Judging If your afternoon assignment is: a Cusp Team Go to the Long Hall on Level 4 with Caroline Whippey

38. 38 Questions Later Tonight Go to the Judging Booth [Insert a picture of it here]

39. 39 Thank You for your contribution to the Canada Wide Science Fair