Montgomery County Science Fair Judging Criteria

(Individual & Team Projects)

What Are We Judging?

• The quality of the work done on a project in science, engineering, or mathematics by a secondary school student, and how well that student understands the project and the area in which he/she has been working.
• How well the student followed the scientific method.
• The detail and accuracy of research as documented in the data book and research paper.
• Whether experimental procedures were used in the best possible way.
• A project which involves laboratory, field, or theoretical work, and not just library research or gadgeteering.
• A secondary school student's work, and not that of a Ph.D. candidate or a professional. Do not overreact to the student's project by giving them far more credit than they deserve, or by acting as though the work done is not worthy because it is not in the Nobel Prize category.
• A project as compared with the other projects in the same category, and not with projects seen elsewhere under other circumstances.

A project is to be judged in the category in which it is entered, even if the project appears to the judges to be more appropriate for another category.

A priori, a project should neither be disqualified nor given a reduced rating because it has been done in a professional laboratory; nor should it be given an upgraded rating for the same reason.

CRITERIA

Exhibits/projects are judged on the following basis:

Creative Ability (30 points / 25 points)

1. Does the Project show creative ability and originality in:

• the questions asked?
• the approach to solving the problem?
• the analysis of the data?
• the interpretation of the data?
• the use of equipment?
• the construction or design of new equipment?

NOTE: Keep in mind that we are judging secondary school projects. One must ask if something is creative and original in terms of a quality level expected of secondary school students. Credit for creative ability and originality should be in regard to what the student has contributed, and not what others have done for the student.

Did the student get an idea from a textbook suggestion for research, or did they develop the idea for their project from reading and analyzing more advanced literature? A project suggested in a textbook lacks creativity. Be wary of projects with elements that appear original, but actually come out of textbooks or laboratory manuals in newly developed curricula.

Evaluate help received from a teacher or other adult. A student may have a very original approach for solving a problem, but it may have come out of suggestions made by a scientist or engineer with whom the student worked during the summer. Weigh the influence of the professional in the development of the approach. Stimulating the student to work out his/her approach does not interfere with student creativity. However, it is not creative if the student merely utilizes a sophisticated approach suggested by another person.

2. Collections cannot be considered to be creative unless they are used to support an investigation and to help answer a question in some original way. Construction of equipment which involves the assembly of a kit cannot be considered to be creative unless some unusual approach or design is used and the student understands the unusual aspect.

3. For engineering and computer science, a clear distinction should be made between gadgeteering and a genuine contribution. A "Rube Goldberg" device may be ingenious, but if it is not really the efficient way to solve a problem, it is not acceptable to the potential user, and if it is unreliable in its functioning, then it cannot really be considered to be a valuable creative contribution. Similarly, computer science projects (especially software projects) should attempt to solve real problems in a creative, economic fashion, rather than be spectacular or amusing.

Scientific Thought/Engineering or Computer Science Goals (30 points / 25 points)

Scientific Thought:

1. Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously?
2. Is the problem sufficiently limited so that it was possible to attack it? One of the characteristics of a good scientist has been reported to be the ability to identify important (rather than trivial) problems that are capable of solution by the methods used. Simply working on a difficult problem without getting anywhere does not make much of a contribution. On the other hand, neither does solving a very simple problem.
3. Was there a procedural plan for obtaining a solution?
4. Are the variables clearly recognized and defined?
5. If controls were necessary, was there a recognition of their need and were they correctly used?
6. Are there adequate data to support the conclusions?
7. Are the limitations of the data recognized?
8. Does the student understand how the project ties in with related research?
9. Does the student have an idea of further research that is indicated?
10. Did the student cite scientific literature or only cite popular literature (local newspaper, Reader's Digest, etc.)?

Engineering or Computer Science Goals:

1. Does the project have a clear objective?
2. Does the objective have relevance to the needs of the potential user?
3. Is the proposed solution:
   
4. workable? Unworkable solutions may be interesting but are of no value from a practical point of view.
   
5. acceptable to the potential user? Solutions which will be rejected or ignored are of no value.
   
6. economically feasible? A solution which is so expensive that it cannot be utilized is of no value.
   
7. Can the solution be successfully utilized in the design or construction of some end product: For computer science projects, can the solution be employed in existing or planned software environments or with existing or planned hardware?
8. Does the solution represent a significant improvement over previous alternatives?
9. Has the solution been tested to see if it will perform under the conditions of use? (This may be difficult for many students but it should be at least considered.)

Thoroughness (15 points / 12 points)

1. Does the project carry out its purpose to completion within the scope of the original aims?
2. How completely has the problem been covered in the project:
3. Are the conclusions based on a single experiment, or on replication?
4. Does the student have a Project Data Book? Has the student made detailed and accurate notes? Does the student have a research paper? Do the results and conclusions flow smoothly and logically from the student's data?
5. Is the student aware of other approaches or theories concerning the project?
6. Was adequate time spent on the project? Usually a project which can be completed in a few days is too simple.
7. Is the student familiar with the scientific literature in the field in which the work was done?

Skill (15 points / 12 points)

1. Does the student have the skills required to do all the work necessary to obtain the data which support the project? Laboratory skills? Computational skills? Observational skills? Design skills?
2. Where was the project done? Home? School laboratory? University laboratory? Scientific research/government laboratory? What assistance was received from parents, teachers, scientists, or engineers?
3. Was the project carried out under the supervision of an adult, or did the student work largely on his/her own? Some projects require adult supervision to meet safety requirements. However, this type of supervision does not imply lack of originality or skill by the student.
4. From where did the equipment come? Did the student build it? Was it obtained on loan? Was it part of a laboratory in which the student worked? There is no requirement for a student to build all of the equipment to be used in a project.

NOTE: If a student had access to sophisticated/professional laboratory equipment, then it is important to estimate the degree of skill actually possessed by the student. The role of the equipment used by the student in doing research and the student's skill with the equipment should be judged.

Clarity (10 points / 10 points)

1. How clearly is the student able to discuss the project? Able to explain its purpose, procedure, and conclusions in a clear and concise manner? Be aware of memorized speeches with little understanding of principles.
2. Has the student exhibited good writing skills? Remember that such material could have been prepared with the assistance of another person.
3. Are the important phases of the project presented in an orderly manner?
4. How clearly are the data presented in the Display? Project Data Book? Research Paper?
5. How clearly are the results presented?
6. How well does the project display explain itself?
7. Is the presentation done in a forthright manner, without cute tricks or gadgets?
8. Was all work done by the student, or was assistance received from an art class or other persons?

Teamwork (16 points) - Team Projects Only

Teamwork evaluation:

1. Are the tasks and contributions of each team member clearly outlined?
2. Was each team member fully involved with the project and is each member familiar with all aspects?
3. Does the final work reflect the coordinated efforts of all team members?

JUDGING PROCEDURES

Category Judging

• When entering the Administration Building, DO NOT go to the Registration Desk. Go directly to the Cafeteria. Signs will provide directions.
• Judges will assemble in the back of the Cafeteria. Coffee and donuts will be available in the Cafeteria as you enter. Go directly to the table with the sign marked with your assigned category. DO NOT go to the supply table at the back unless you have a question. The Category Chairperson will have all materials that will be needed for judging.
• A short orientation briefing will be given by the Judges Committee to the assembled judges before you leave to begin judging the projects. Copies of the Judging Criteria and these Procedures will be available for those judges that did not bring their copies.
• Judges will use the Judges Tally Sheets to evaluate the projects. These forms closely follow the Judging Criteria that are to be strictly followed.
• Judges are requested to inform their category chairperson if: 1) You are a relative of an exhibitor in the category you are judging; 2) You are or have been a mentor of an exhibitor in the category you are judging; or, 3) You have any personal or professional association with an exhibitor or an exhibitor's relatives that might affect your impartiality as a judge. Generally, any such possible conflicts are easily handled by shifting from Senior to Junior Division, or vice versa. Occasionally, assignment of a judge to another category is necessary.
• Category Chairpersons will assign judges to evaluate a subset of the projects in the given category. In general, an effort will be made to have each project evaluated by at least two judges. In the past, it has been effective for groups of 2 or 3 judges to evaluate a set of projects, depending on the ratio of judges to projects in any given category. The students will be available at this time to discuss their work with the judges. Each judge or group of judges should plan to spend no more than 5-10 minutes on each project. This is intended as an initial screening to select the best projects that will be given further consideration.
• Green dots will be available to be placed on the project's place card after the project is judged. Every project MUST be evaluated, even if the student is not present. Very often, the student will have a video tape of his/her presentation. Rooms will be designated for viewing the videotapes.
• After the initial screening, the various groups/judges should reassemble at their category table. The best projects (top rated) in each group of projects should be selected for further consideration. This will, hopefully, compensate for the rating styles of different judges. In addition to the top rated projects, projects for which there was a disparity of opinion between judges should also be given a second look. After choosing the projects for further consideration, each group of judges should visit and evaluate all selected projects that they have not previously evaluated.
• After completion of the second round of judging, the groups of judges should reassemble at their category table to select 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners and honorable mention(s). There are no hard and fast rules for making this determination, except that there should be a first place winner for each category. Judges sometimes feel that there aren't any projects in the category that deserve 1st place. Remember that the projects are being judged compared to the others in that category. At the other extreme, there have been multiple 1st place winners when there are undisputed ties. Again, a single 1st place winner is preferable, while others may easily have multiple winners.
• Category Chairpersons are responsible for collecting the winners' information and delivering the completed awards forms and Judges' Tally Sheets to the Judging Committee.
• A light lunch will be available for the Judges upon completion of their judging tasks.

Grand Award Judging

• Judges for the Grand Awards will meet in the rear of the Cafeteria. A light lunch will be provided prior to commencement of the afternoon judging.
• All first prize winners in each category are eligible to compete for the Grand Awards for the Life and Physical Science Fairs. All other exhibitors are dismissed. If no first prize was awarded in a category (Junior or Senior Division), then that division in the category will not be represented in the Grand Award judging. Multiple 1st prize winners will all be represented.
• The Grand Award Judges for the Life and Physical Science Fairs will be divided into Junior and Senior Divisions. They will then be directed to designated rooms for the Grand Award Judging. All students will be asked to take their projects to designated rooms for the Grand Award judging. The judges will form a panel and interview each project at once.
• The same Judging Criteria and evaluation forms as used with Category Judging will be used for the Grand Award Judging. The Judges will make individual evaluations at first and then assemble for each group (Life Junior and Senior/ Physical Junior and Senior) to select the Grand Award winners and runners up.
• The designated Chairpersons are responsible for delivering the notification of awards and Judges' Tally Sheets to the Judges Committee.

Back to CPCUG Science Fair Home Page