Preparation for Judges 2017
These pages contain the information that every judge needs to be effective at the CWSF. Please take the time to become familiar with them before arriving.
- Conflict of Interest
- Evaluating Projects
- Evaluating Reports
- Interviewing the Finalists
- Judges appointed by the sponsor of a particular Special Award.
- Mentored Projects - Considerations for Judges
- Numbering the Projects
- Photographing the Projects
- Timetable for Judges
- Types of Projects
Youth Science Canada appreciates that it will be a challenge for some judges to make appropriate baby sitting arrangements for their young children. Finalists have worked very hard and traveled very long distances to get to the Canada Wide Science Fair, and so have earned our undivided attention during judging. Thus we respectfully ask that you make appropriate arrangements for your children while you are judging. They are not permitted in the judging area, or the exhibit hall on judging day.
As a CWSF judge, I understand that the materials I am privy to are confidential and may contain proprietary information that is the intellectual property of the finalists. I therefore agree to maintain strict confidentiality of all such information. I further agree not to share any project or judging materials with anyone or leave them exposed to accidental viewing by others at any time.
Judges will not, either before, during, or after the Canada Wide Science Fair:
- Discuss any item related to judging with anyone except the other judges on their team.
- Discuss any item related to judging where they may be overheard by a Finalist, Delegate or anyone else who is not a judge. This is most likely to happen on the floor of the exhibit hall.
- Suggest to any finalist that he or she is (or is not) a good candidate for a particular award, no matter how deserving.
- Request permission to take photographs of any exhibit on judging day.
- Leave any papers or notes related to judging where Finalists or Delegates can find them.
- Reveal the results of the competition.
- Leave all papers related to judging in the judges meeting area, where they will be collected and filed.
- Delete or shred all notes, five page reports and pictures of exhibits taken during orientation. This must be done no later than one week following the end of the Canada Wide Science Fair.
- Refer to the CWSF Chief Judge any requests for information about the judging process from a Finalist, Delegate or anyone else who is not a judge. Youth Science Canada has a process in place to respond to such requests.
Thank you for your careful attention to these important details that help to ensure the integrity of the judging process.
Conflict of Interest
1.1 The judging process at the Canada Wide Science Fair (CWSF) must adhere to the highest standards of integrity, so that it is seen to be fair and without bias.
2. National Judging Committee (NJC)
2.1 No person with a child, grandchild, or other youth living in his/her household registered as a current CWSF finalist shall be a member of the National Judging Committee. The member shall either recuse him/herself from the NJC until after the CWSF, or resign from the NJC.
3. Host Committee Chief Judge
3.1 The Host Committee Chief Judge shall not judge at his/her CWSF. The Host Committee Chief Judge of the current CWSF shall not be involved in the processing of any judging or award results at that fair.
4. Judges at the CWSF
4.1 A CWSF judge shall immediately identify any potential conflict of interest to the CWSF Chief Judge Recruitment. This may include, but shall not be limited to, having a child, grandchild, or other youth living in his/her household registered as a current CWSF finalist.
4.2 Parents and other individuals with a potential conflict of interest with a current CWSF finalist shall not judge at the CWSF.
4.3 A CWSF judge shall not judge a project with which he/she has had significant prior interaction - for example, as a mentor or a judge at a school or regional science fair. The CWSF Chief Judge Recruitment shall make decisions regarding this type of conflict. Where the situation is unclear, the CWSF National Judge in Chief, CWSF Deputy National Judge in Chief and/or the Chief Judge Operations may be consulted. A record of the decision made shall be maintained until seven (7) days after the final day of the CWSF.
These four items refer to aspects of evaluation, which may be helpful to you as you assign your Level and Rating.
Organization and Completion
Good organization is part of conducting an effective investigation. This includes a clear objective, a plan for carrying out that objective, well-organized and comprehensible data, and a lucid discussion of experimental conclusions and implications. This means, too, that the investigation will have been completed and not simply ended because the finalist may have run out of time. In other words, the project should represent a completed body of work even if the results do not support the hypothesis. Finally, the implications of the project need to be addressed.
Some aspects of organization and completion include:
- Well-defined goal/objective. This can be embodied in the hypothesis or consist of additional statements regarding the project goals.
- Well-organized and executed experimental procedures.
- Data recorded in orderly manner.
- Experiments repeated as needed.
- Project represents a completed body of work.
- Implications of the project fully addressed.
- Well-organized display board.
Effort and Motivation
One measure of this is the amount of time spent on the project, including background reading and project execution. More difficult to determine, but possibly more important, are the depth of reading and resulting project quality as well as what the finalist learned from his/her experience. An additional measure of effort is the quality of the display, particularly its effectiveness in communicating. To the extent that an attractive display may communicate more effectively and indicate greater effort, that aspect also may be considered. Some aspects of effort and motivation include:
- Amount of time spent on project.
- Amount of time spent on background reading and study.
- Extent to which the depth of background reading and study was reflected in the project.
- What finalist learned.
- Display board informative and attractive.
Although clarity is a theme found in all of the judging criteria, it applies specifically to certain elements such as notebooks. Some aspects of clarity include:
- Original project notebook available for inspection.
- Project notebook clear, well organized and accurate.
- Hypothesis, purpose, procedures, results, and conclusions clearly stated.
- Project title accurately portrays the project.
- Abstract clear and well written.
- Oral presentations are clear.
- Audio-visual materials, including the display board, clear and relevant.
Comparing projects with widely different levels of sophistication
Sometimes finalists have access to sophisticated laboratories, have advanced scientific equipment available to them, and/or carry out their projects under the guidance of a professional scientist. Comparing such projects with those done in a home environment can be difficult. As a judge, you should not be in the position of assuming that a project would have been better or worse with or without the advantages of better equipment or instruction.
The critical issue here is not the level of the tools used. Rather, it is what the finalist has done with the resources at his/her disposal. If advanced instrumentation is used to further a strong scientific investigation, and that is clearly communicated in the interview, such a project should do well. However, a finalist who does better science and has superior understanding but used only items found in an ordinary kitchen deserves a better rating. The use of sophisticated equipment in a weak project and/or by a finalist who does not understand the scientific principles involved should receive little or no credit.
It is important that the finalist’s knowledge should be appropriate to the project and its goals. If advanced instrumentation is used, for example, the finalist should be conversant with the principles underlying that use, and how results obtained from the equipment relate to conclusions reached.
A few days prior to judging day, you will be given access to the reports submitted by the finalists.
- Background: how the project came to be.
- Purpose: why the project was conducted and what was hoped to be achieved.
- Hypothesis: proposition to be tested, if applicable.
- Procedure: A brief outline of the materials and methods used.
- Results or Observations: A summary of the results of the Experiment, Innovation or Study.
- Conclusions: what can be concluded from the results and why it is important.
- Five pages plus two extra pages for the references and bibliography
- Double spaced, 12 point type.
- Full details are in Policy 22.214.171.124 CWSF Project Report
Excellence Awards - Morning Judging
Most judges will evaluate seven projects for 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for reflection. Read the corresponding reports in detail. Prepare some questions. Assign a tentative rank - high, medium or low for each Report. This is one component of the mark for Communication. Each judging team will discuss each project, and then assign scores for Scientific Thought, Originality and Creativity, and Communication. This all requires that you be thoroughly familair with the report before you meet the finalists.
Special Awards - Afternoon Judging
In the first round, judges will evaluate up to seven projects for 8 minutes plus 2 minutes for reflection. They decide whether each project is in the top 20% or not. This is a simpler decision than is required for the Excellence Award Judging, so you need to read the report, but may not need the deeper analysis required for the Excellence Awards. You can read them quickly.
Challenge Awards, Cusp Judging
The finalists for these awards are selected after the morning judging for the Excellence Awards. Their reports are not available to the judges.
Interviewing the Finalists
Consider sitting, so that you and the finalist are more nearly the same height.
Introduce yourself and ask each finalist to do likewise.
Ascertain, through questioning, each participant’s contribution to and knowledge of the project.
The physical display is secondary to the participant’s understanding.
Pose your questions in a positive, non-threatening manner.
Even if you experience a sense of dismay at a project, be careful not to convey this to the finalist via tone of voice, body language or lack of attention.
Give any appropriate feedback, and note this on the judging form. Be sure that it is done in a positive and encouraging way.
Thank each participant for his or her time.
Be discreet and confidential when discussing any judging matter, so that no finalist or delegate can hear you.
Judges Appointed by the Sponsor of a particular Special Award.
Youth Science Canada is privileged to have your organization sponsor a Special Award, and we are delighted to have you join us in selecting the winner. Here we provide the information needed to ensure you have a successful judging experience.
The Canada-Wide Science Fair (CWSF) is the largest annual youth science event in Canada and the pinnacle of the national science fairs program. This year’s event (the 55th annual) will take place at McGill University in Montreal. Projects that advance to the Canada-Wide Science Fair (CWSF) represent the work of some of the most promising young scientific minds in this country. Approximately 25,000 young Canadians compete in local and regional science fairs to qualify for a place at the fair. The science you will encounter ranges from good to extraordinary.
Every year, a handful of projects provoke heated debate amongst the professional scientists judging them. It is not uncommon for judges to leave the floor to consult their peers on the science they are evaluating. While the projects you judge may range in quality and sophistication, the finalists who have brought them to the CWSF have poured their hearts and souls into them. Some will be nervous; many will be excited to have their science assessed by a professional. Most judges rave about the experience.
Judges find the young scientists refreshing, the projects impressive and the colleagues they meet a pleasure. We encourage the participants to enjoy the CWSF as an experience as much as a competition. We hope you will do the same: you’ll find the energy exhilarating and the people good fun. Everyone you meet will be passionate about science in one way or another – so enjoy them, and enjoy yourself!
The Special Awards are judged from 2:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. on judging day. As the representative of the Sponsor, you will serve as the Chair for your Special Award.
You will have a much richer and enjoyable experience if you join us for the full judging program:
• Orientation on the previous evening.
• Excellence Awards judging in the morning.
• Special Award judging in the afternoon.
Full description of the judging process:
Instructions for the Special Awards:
Full Judging Timetable:
Orientation – Monday 15 May 2017 4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
There is an orientation and briefing for all judges. This will include a meal, and two presentations on the judging system. The first is for everyone and describes the Excellence (Medal) Award judging on the morning of judging day. The second is one of three: Special Award judging or Cusp judging, or Challenge Award judging that all take place in parallel on the afternoon of judging day. Following these presentations, judges will have unrestricted access to the projects without the finalists being present. Most judges use this time to review the projects that they will be judging and to formulate their questions. Judges will also be able to compare the projects that they are judging with others in the same grade category.
Judging Day – Tuesday 16 May 2017 7:30 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Judging day begins with judges arriving between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and finishes by 5:30 p.m. Food will be provided for all: breakfast, lunch, coffee and juice.
Excellence Awards (Medals) 9:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
The goal of the Excellence Award (medal) judging is to identify the Gold, Silver and Bronze medalists in each grade category – junior (grade 7/8), intermediate (grade 9/10), and senior (grade 11/12 and Cégep). Judges and projects are matched using the information provided during the online registration process.
Teams of four judges evaluate up to 7 projects within one grade category. Judges interview each student for 20 minutes, and have a further 10 minutes to privately fill out the judging sheet. When all judging is complete, each team meets during lunch to discuss the projects and assign through discussion and consensus the Level and Rating of each.
We strongly urge you to take on this additional task. This will give you the opportunity to meet some wonderful students and colleagues, and is an excellent warm up for your Special Award judging.
Special Awards 2:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
Special Awards reflect the diversity of scientific endeavor as well as more narrowly defined areas of scientific exploration championed by various foundations and organizations. Some of these are experiential awards involving a trip or similar experience, thus giving the winner the opportunity to meet scientists and students in other parts of Canada or abroad.
Judges evaluate projects according to the criteria supplied by the sponsor. The first round only is timetabled: 8 minutes for the interview and 2 minutes to make notes. At the end of each round, teams meet to identify the top 20% of all projects. It may take one, two or three rounds of judging to determine the winner, depending on the number of self-nominations. Each finalist can self-nominate for up to three Special Awards.
Judging sheets with clear criteria will guide your discussions with the young scientists and assess their work.
Thanks to Judges
Your generous contribution of time and professional expertise to the judging process is enormously important to the young Canadians who have qualified for the Canada-Wide Science Fair. They are the next generation of scientists, and they benefit greatly from your participation. On their behalf, Youth Science Canada thanks you. There will be a reception for all judges at the end of judging day to acknowledge your significant contributions to the CWSF.
Questions regarding judging or registration should be directed to:
Youth Science Canada sponsors involved in judging should direct their questions to:
Lori Murray, Administrative Assistant 866-341-0040 ext. 230
Mentored Projects - Considerations for Judges
Mentorship may take many forms and often occurs on a continuum. Some projects require no mentorship, while others require extensive mentorship in a specialized facility. The appropriate level of mentorship is influenced by the nature of the project, the needs of the student, and the support mentors are able to provide. As the level of mentorship increases, both mentors and mentees must be increasingly diligent to ensure that the project is the work of the student. Higher level mentorships in which the project idea, research question(s) and/or procedure are prescribed or provided by the mentor violate the spirit of the Mentoring Code of Conduct
Youth Science Canada defines the following levels of mentorship:
- Student does not receive any mentoring.
- Student exchanges a few emails or phone calls, and/or meets with the mentor once or twice to discuss the student’s ideas.
- Student occasionally contacts the mentor by email or phone, and/or meets occasionally with the mentor who provided some advice or materials.
- Student has regular contact with the mentor by email or phone, and/or meets regularly with the mentor who provides advice, materials, assistance with design/testing, or data analysis.
- Student has regular face-to-face contact with the mentor and regular access to advice, materials, space, equipment, design/testing, or other personnel in a specialized facility.
- Student works closely with the 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.
Responsibilities of Judges
The training of scientists is based largely on a mentoring model. Graduate students at both the MSc and PhD levels all have mentors, usually called supervisors. Nonetheless, some in the science fair community feel that mentorship confers an unfair advantage on science fair projects. Judges must be sensitive to these concerns and ensure that judging focuses on students’ scientific thought, understanding and creativity.
Some projects involving the use of sophisticated or expensive equipment and exotic materials are scientifically simple and less creative than projects using more common materials. Sophisticated equipment or materials can unduly impress some judges, while others may be unduly impressed by the project carried out by a lone student in his/her garage using only household or commonly available materials. In all cases it is essential to look beyond the setting in which a project was carried out and to evaluate what science the student has actually done.
Many, perhaps a majority, of science fair judges are involved in professional science and thus have an understanding of the nature of mentoring in the scientific enterprise and have some degree of experience in evaluating the scientific merit of work in this context. Judges with this background and experience have a responsibility to enlighten and assist judges who have no such context or experience.
It is most often the case that a team of judges will be evaluating a group of projects, each of which has a different level of mentoring and one or more of which may be non-mentored. In this context judges have the following responsibilities:
- to avoid with diligence any biases for or against mentored versus non-mentored projects;
- to identify carefully, via documents provided by the student(s) and face-to-face discussion, the level and nature of any mentorship;
- to assess the degree and accuracy to which the student(s) disclosed and described any mentoring;
- to assess thoroughly the degree of independence in: topic selection; design of the study, experiment, or innovation; project undertaking; analysis of data; and project write-up;
- to assess the level of scientific understanding of the project and its scientific context displayed by the student(s);
- to assess and rank a project on: the creativity of its concept; scientific merit of its design and results, the level of scientific understanding displayed by its author(s), the clarity of communications and dissemination; and, in the case of mentored projects, on the degree of independence from the mentor(s), all in relation to the age/grade-level of the student(s).
Numbering the Projects
020316 = Energy - Senior - Project 16
040105 = Health - Junior - Project 5.
990302= International - Senior - Project 2
Projects are laid out in the exhibit hall in numerical order.
Photographing the Projects
Some judges like to take pictures of the projects during their review of the projects in the absence of the students. These pictures are to be used for study later that night. These pictures are to be treated just like the Reports, and must be deleted after the judging process is over.
Judges may not request permission to take photographs on judging day.
Judges are free to return to the fair during public viewing after judging is over, and request permission to take photographs then.
The CWSF official photographer will take pictures of all the exhibitors, and these will be available on the web, a few weeks after the fair: https://secure.youthscience.ca/virtualcwsf/
Timetable for Judges
Wednesday Prior to Judging
The finalists' reports will be available for download. Read them before arriving at the Fair.
Monday 15 May 2017
|Registration is in McGill Athletics - Tomlinson Hall.
Please do NOT come to register before your scheduled time.
Thank you for helping to ensure we will be ready to greet you.
|4:00||4:30||Registration for the Excellence Award Chairs only.|
|4:30||5:00||Orientation for Excellence Award Chairs in the McGill Athletics: Currie Gym - Jeff Hoyle|
|4:30||5:30||Registration for all remaining judges.|
|5:00||5:15||Excellence Award Chairs - practise entering marks using a tablet or smartphone. Know your password. Wilson Wong.|
|5:00||6:30||Supper. Sit at Excellence Award judging team tables. Review Excellence Award judging process. McGill Athletics: Currie Gym|
|6:30||7:15||Orientation for Excellence Award Judges - Judith Soon. Currie Gym|
|7:15||7:30||Special Award Judges move to their Special Award judging tables; Cusp Judges move to Rooms 172-173; Challenge Award Judges move to Room 152|
|7:30||8:00||Orientation for Special Award Judges - David Lowther and Pierre Phillipe Ouimet; Currie Gym.|
|7:30||8:00||Orientation for Cusp Judges in rooms 172-173 - Mark Brigham|
|7:30||8:00||Orientation for Challenge Award Judges in room 152 - Ken Elliott|
|8:00||8:30||Orientation for Special Award Chairs in room 352 - Jeff Hoyle, Dianne Fraser, Caroline Whippey|
|8:00||10:00||Information Booth in the Exhibit Hall: Caroline Whippey plus one TBA, rotatiing.|
Tuesday 16 May 2017
|7:00 am||8:30 am||Continental Breakfast and orientation in teams. Currie Gym.|
|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|
|9:00||12:30||Booth problem solving: David Lowther, Ken Elliott
Roving Problem Solving: Judith Soon, Patrick Whippey
Messaging for Judges: Wilson Wong
|12:00||12:30||Lunch for judges without a 12:00 appointment|
|12:30||2:00||Lunch and discussion in judging teams|
|2:00||Deadline for entry of results in to the database via a tablet or smartphone.|
|2:00||2:25||Musical Chairs. Move to your afternoon judging table. Wilson Wong|
|2:30||5:30||Special Awards Judging. Round One only is scheduled - David Lowther and Pierre Phillipe Ouimet|
|2:30||2:45||Challenge Awards Judges meet in teams - Ken Elliott|
|2:30||2:45||Cusp Judges meet in teams - Mark Brigham|
|2:45||5:00||Challenge Awards judging - unscheduled.|
|2:45||5:00||Cusp Judging - unscheduled|
|5:30||5:45||Judging is over. Leave all paperwork in the boxes provided.|
|5:30||5:40||Students leave the judging hall.|
|4:30||6:00||Reception for all judges in McGill Athletics - Tomlinson Hall. It opens at 4:30 pm, with words of thanks at 5:30 pm. - David Lowther, Ken Elliott, Wilson Wong.|
Types of Projects
The evaluation of scientific thought constitutes 50 percent of the project mark and requires special attention. One important consideration is the three types of projects
While the criteria for judging scientific thought vary slightly for each, the three types of project are equally eligible for awards at the CWSF.
An experiment involves the undertaking of an investigation to test a scientific hypothesis by the experimental method. At least one independent variable is manipulated; other variables are controlled. The best experimental projects involve original experimental research in which most significant variables are identified and controlled, and in which the data analysis is thorough and complete.
An innovation involves the development and evaluation of new devices, models, theorems, physical theories, techniques, or methods in technology, engineering, computing, natural science or social science. The best innovation projects either integrate several technologies, inventions or social/behavioural interventions or else they design and construct an innovative application that will have human and/or commercial benefit.
A study consists of the analysis of, and possibly collections of, data or facts using accepted methodologies from the natural, social, biological or health sciences. These include subjective studies involving human subjects, biology field studies, data mining, pattern recognition in physical data, etc. The best projects of this type correlate information from a variety of peer-reviewed publications and fromsystematic observations, and reveal significant new information or original solutions to problems. Quantitative studies should include appropriate analysis of some significant variable(s) using arithmetic, statistical or graphical methods. Qualitative and mixed methods studies should include a detailed description of the procedures and/ or techniques applied to gather and/or analyze the data.