Published using Google Docs
NCSEF 2024 NC Judges Handbook
Updated automatically every 5 minutes

Judging Handbook

Tony Rice, Judging Coordinator          judges@ncsciencefair.org

Judy Day, Director NCSEF        director@ncsciencefair.org

Adapted from the 2003 Kern County Regional Science Fair Judging Handbook

for the NCSEF, and revised 2007, 2011, March 2023, and January 2024

Who is qualified to be a judge?

At least a bachelor’s degree in a scientific, technical, or educational field. Exceptions may be made for equivalent related experience, please contact judges@ncsciencefair.org.

But most importantly you must enjoy encouraging elementary, middle, or high school students to continue their love of asking questions and finding answers through experimentation.

The Science Fair: What it is and your role in it?

Judges have a critical role in the science fair process. Students have identified their interaction with a science fair judge as solidifying their educational and professional path.  

The purpose of the science fair is to give young people the opportunity to actually do some science. Along with your role as an evaluator of student projects, you are expected to encourage and motivate students to continue pursuing science and even sometimes doing a little teaching.

Even a participant whose project is of modest quality should feel a sense of accomplishment and be proud of what he or she did.  

The NC Science and Engineering Fair (NCSEF)

Thousands of North Carolina students in grades 3 through 12 from public, public charter, private, and homeschools across the state compete in the NCSEF system.  

Most begin at a local fair, sponsored at their school.  Top projects are promoted to one of ten regional fairs, usually held in February.  Regional fairs follow ISEF (more on that below) guidelines on safety, forms and judging and use this handbook as well.

Those regional fairs promote their top projects to the state fair held in Raleigh in March each year. Through the years the fair has grown to about 400 student researchers, requiring more than 100 judges who select:

Each project competes within a category.  Junior and Senior divisions have identical categories with elementary projects competing in slightly simplified ones.  When you register as a judge, you can indicate your divisional and categorical preferences, along with your professional and educational qualifications.  

The judging coordinator uses this information to best align judges to projects to ensure the best possible experience for you as a judge and especially for students. Your time with each student is brief but the experience can be life changing.

The NC Science and Engineering Fair is proudly sponsored by the NC Science Fair Foundation, a 50l(c)3 organization.

The Judge-Student Relationship

What to expect from the students:

As stated above, the students you meet probably already have won or placed in their school or district science fairs. They will be proud of their accomplishments and should be able to explain their projects clearly and concisely. This explanation should include what they did as well as their results and conclusions. Their displays should clearly show the intent and outcomes of experimentation, and they should be able to answer questions about their projects at levels appropriate to their ages and grade levels. They should be able to describe the methodology and equipment employed and the thought processes that were used to develop their hypotheses, experimental designs, results, and conclusions.

You should not be surprised to find projects vary widely in quality and sophistication. Some projects, particularly at the high school level, may be comparable to graduate school work – and occasionally beyond. The vast majority, of course, will be more elementary.  Some displays will be elaborate while others may be relatively simple. The purpose of the display is to clearly communicate the project’s purpose, hypothesis, methodology, results, conclusions, and other information relevant to the investigation. A simple, clear, and well-organized display is to be preferred over one that is ornate but falls short of accomplishing this purpose.  Scientific content and the ability to communicate content is of primary importance for evaluating the project board.  Sophistication of creating the board should not necessarily cause a major subtraction or addition of points.  

PLEASE NOTE:  The availability of mentors and sources for project board creation will vary greatly among students and students should not be penalized for not having these resources.

Confidentiality The judging process must remain confidential. Judges should not disclose any information regarding their findings and conclusions except to those on their judging panel and Science Fair officials.   All notes gathered during the competition should be destroyed to protect the privacy of participants.

Conflicts of interest If you find that you are acquainted with a student you have been assigned to judge or identify any other potential conflict of interest (real or perceived by others), you must inform Science Fair officials as soon as possible.  You will be assigned to another judging panel. 

Rules and regulations  All projects are screened before being accepted into the Science Fair. Judges should assume that the projects you judge are in compliance with all relevant rules and regulations. If you feel a project has violated a rule or regulation, please bring the matter to the attention of the Science Fair Director or Judging Coordinator before caucusing begins.  Do not discuss this with the student(s).  Rule violations should not be part of the judging process and should not be discussed when deciding on awards. 

Treating students with respect 

All projects should be treated in the same serious, professional manner reflective of the significant effort students have put into them. Although a project may have flaws, you should treat it as the serious project it is meant to be. Avoid any temptation to “fix” these flaws with suggestions.

Listen carefully to the student’s description and explanations, ask questions which reveal his/her understanding of the project and its conclusions as well as the relevant science, and while evaluating the project fairly and candidly, provide praise for the accomplishments demonstrated along with your appraisal. Treat them as the young scientists they are.

The interest you show in their project and them as individuals are what they will remember.  Many young scientists describe interactions like this and sparking a lifelong interest and career in science and technology.

Educational value of interviews The completion of a Science Fair project should result in significant learning. While the primary purpose of the questions asked during judging will be to evaluate the project and its results, each student should emerge from the process with further insights, understanding, and even ideas about additional investigations. Questions which inspire the student to think more deeply about the project and become aware of issues not previously considered are encouraged. The best questions guide the student to broaden their knowledge through further pursuit of the subject.

During the judging process, judges often want to help the student with information about the subject of the project, particularly if the judge finds that certain points require clarification or correction. This is commendable, but be careful not to coach the student with information that could be used to improve the interview process with subsequent judges. This can result in wide swings in scoring that make the process of selecting awards more difficult.

When spotting misconceptions or errors, it is best to ask questions (e.g., “Have you considered the effect of air pressure on the speed of a baseball?”) and/or suggesting to the student that he/she reexamine the areas in question.

If a student or project has especially impressed you and would like to offer help or advice, or even a job, contact the Judging Director or Science Fair Director. If direct contact between a student and judge after the Science Fair would result in further benefit to the student, such contact will be facilitated by the NC Science and Engineering Fair with the approval of a parent or guardian. Judges may not initiate or propose any further contact with students.  Do not request a phone number, email address or any other personal information from students.

Judges must adhere to the highest standards of professionalism in all cases.  Inappropriate comments, especially to students, are unacceptable. Such behavior is sufficient grounds for barring that judge from that and future science fairs.

It is important to remember that students participating in the Fair are elementary, middle, and high school age. They are not adults. The relationship of a student to the judge is that of a minor to any adult in a position of authority.

It is the responsibility of all judges to ensure that all interactions between themselves and the students are in the best interests of the students. 

The Judging Process

Preparing for judging 

During the fair, things will go pretty fast. Time spent preparing before the fair will be paid back many times over in your interactions with students and generally making the day run more smoothly for all involved.

In the days before the fair, you will receive your judging assignment along with access to project materials.

  1. • Review this manual and become familiar with the judging guidelines and worksheet.
  2. • Review the abstracts and materials of the projects (quad charts, slides, etc.)  you will be judging
  3. • Prepare preliminary interview questions for each project.  Not just items that aren’t clear from the materials but topics that might give the student an opportunity to shine.

The day of the (in-person) fair 

Finally, the average length of time for each interview will be established. This is never as much as we would like but it is important to adhere to this as closely as you can. North Carolina is a huge state and many participants have long drives ahead of them. Experienced judges will tell you this is the most difficult part of the process.

Each judge will be provided with a single copy of the judging criteria (scoresheet) for engineering projects if you are judging in that category and/or all other science projects.  

You are encouraged to record scores for each project in your notes.  This helps avoid the expense and paper required to provide individual score sheets for the 1500-2000 interactions between judges and students.

Judging Procedures 

It is not necessary to probe too deeply, “the hand of the parent” is usually pretty obvious.  It is equally important to form your opinions about the level of effort put in by the student vs. outside help from the student’s answers to your questions, not by appearance of the project or its display.

It is appropriate for judges to ask questions about how the student acquired any equipment, understanding of scientific concepts, or knowledge of procedures which are generally unavailable at that grade or age level.

Be careful not to color your opinion of a project based on the availability of resources to the student, positively or negatively.  Your scores should reflect the output of the work, not the abundance or lack of opportunity the student has.

What makes a good science fair project?

 

The following was written principally by Anita Gale with assistance from the California State Science Fair Judging Policy Advisory Committee and was revised and condensed by Robert Allison of the Kern County Science Foundation and revised for the NC Science Fair by Judy Day and Tony Rice.

A good Science Fair project involves the student in a journey of discovery, driven by curiosity. It typically starts with an interest in some scientific subject, such as biology or geology. As a result of learning about the subject, the student may propose a hypothesis and then do further background research. The student then develops an experimental procedure that will produce data, from which she/he can draw conclusions to prove or disprove the hypothesis. More often than not, new hypotheses will result from the experiment, leading to new experiments, which might be done in the future.

A hypothesis typically takes the form of “If I do this, then that should happen.” A good hypothesis is not just a guess about what might happen if something is done, however. It is based on some knowledge of the subject, usually gained from prior study and observation. A quality Science Fair Project directs the student’s efforts toward a particular result or expectation; undirected experimentation just to find out what happens is play, not science (although notable discoveries have been made in this manner, they are notable because they were “accidents”).

A good Science Fair project does not come from a website or book focused on project ideas.

Each project is a journey:

The final step before coming to the Science Fair is to prepare a display to illustrate all of the above and to rehearse (but not memorize!) the following:

It is important to understand that proving the hypothesis is NOT the purpose of a Science Fair project. The process of asking questions and performing experiments in an attempt to find answers is the project. Projects may not provide the expected answer or even any answer at all, but that doesn’t mean that “good science” was not done. Real scientists often do many experiments before they begin to get answers to scientific questions.

Teachers and Parents are advised to encourage students to develop a project that genuinely interests them. Judges will occasionally ask students why they chose to do a particular project, and it usually turns out that the best work is done by students who are motivated and inspired by their curiosity about what they are investigating. Students who developed a project simply because a teacher or parent expected them to do so often will produce mediocre results.

Types of Projects to Avoid  - The following types of projects are unlikely to receive awards at the NC Science and Engineering Fair and will not be invited to compete at ISEF or ISWEEEP.

.

Judging Criteria

It is critically important that judging be based primarily on the scientific merit of the projects. This includes the project itself, the student’s knowledge of the scientific and/or engineering principles underlying it, and his/her comprehension of the project’s basis, experimental design, outcomes, and implications. A good project must consist of an investigation and not be merely a collection or demonstration of technology or scientific principles, however impressive. Sometimes displays will be elaborate and polished. This should be given credit only to the extent that its elaborate nature results in more effective communication of the purpose, hypothesis, methods, results, and conclusions reached in the investigation. A polished display is not a substitute for good science.

Specific Judging Criteria

The following criteria can be used as guidelines to judging. Since the criteria are closely related, the elements included in them can overlap.

  1. • Originality/Creativity

Science Fair projects are not expected to be publishable research (although some are). However, originality or creativity is possible even if the project is relatively trivial scientifically or covers well-trodden ground. It is important to take the grade level and age of the student into consideration, as well. What is new and creative for a 4th grader might well be superficial for a high school senior. Some aspects of originality/creativity include:

  1. o Original problem or original approach to an old problem.
  2. o Creative approach to experimental design.
  3. o Materials and equipment used ingeniously.
  4. o Creative or original thinking in application and/or interpretation of data.
  5. o Understanding of unanswered questions demonstrated.
  6. o Project goes beyond textbooks at student’s grade level.
  1. • Scientific Thought and Understanding

This is the one most important criterion for judging a project’s merit. The major purpose of the Science Fair is to provide a vehicle for the student to engage in the processes of science and engineering. Although that process includes physical acts such as data gathering, such physical processes are meaningless if they are not accompanied by scientific thinking Once results are obtained, it is the interpretation of those results which are significant, whether nor not the hypothesis is confirmed. Some aspects of scientific thought include:

o Clear, well-stated hypothesis or engineering goal, based on reading, study, and/or observation. Not only study but depth of study is a factor here.

o Experimental procedure effective in testing the hypothesis or design.

o Results and conclusions clear, honestly stated, logical, relevant, and address the hypothesis or testing of the design

o Implications of the experimental results discussed; one or more additional hypotheses and experiments suggested.

o Demonstrates depth of knowledge of scientific and/or engineering principles involved.

o extrapolate what was learned from the project to the subject in general or to related subjects. Student can

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 student 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/completion include:

o Well-defined goal/objective. This can be embodied in the hypothesis or consist of additional statements regarding the project goals.

o Well-organized and executed experimental procedures.

o Data recorded in an orderly manner.

o Experiments repeated as needed.

o Project represents a completed body of work.

o Implications of the project fully addressed.

o 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 student 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:

  1. o Amount of time spent on the project.
  2. o Amount of time spent on background reading and study and the extent to which the depth of background reading and study was reflected in the  project.
  3. o What the student learned, and how that is demonstrated in project materials and the interview. 
  4. o Display board informative, attractive, and engaging         
  5. o Any personal connection the student has with the project.  Is it a problem that affects them, their family or community?

• Clarity

Although clarity is a theme found in all of the judging criteria, it applies specifically to certain elements such as the display board and notebooks. Some aspects of clarity include:

  1. o Original project notebook available for inspection.
  2. o Project notebook clear, well organized and accurate.
  3. o Hypothesis, purpose, procedures, results, and conclusions clearly stated.
  4. o Project title accurately portrays the project. This should be considered less stringently for elementary than senior projects.
  5. o Abstract clear and well written.
  6. o Oral presentations are clear.
  7. o Audio-visual materials, including the display board, clear and relevant.

For your convenience, two judging worksheets are available. It includes the above criteria as well as the relative point value to be assigned to each category. Copies of the worksheets follow.

 

Judging Criteria

While judges can use whatever method works best for them, one procedure they might consider utilizes a 100 - point scale with points assigned to creative ability, scientific thought or engineering goals (II a and b respectively), thoroughness, skill, and clarity. Team projects have a slightly different balance of points that includes points for teamwork. A chart of these point values is located at the end of these criteria for easy reference. Following is a list of questions for each set of criteria that can assist you in interviewing the finalists and aid in your evaluation of the finalists’ projects.

Judging Criteria for Science Projects

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

Judging Criteria for Engineering Projects

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

Other judging issues:

• Comparing  projects with widely different levels of sophistication

Some students 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. Most are done in a home or school environment.  All are capable of producing winning projects.

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.

Projects should be judged not on the level of the tools used but on what the student 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. The mere use of sophisticated equipment in a weak project and/or by a student who does not understand the scientific principles involved should receive little or no credit.

A student who does better science and has superior understanding but used only items found in an ordinary kitchen deserves a better rating. Students who excel at this with creative solutions should be additionally rewarded.

The student’s knowledge should be appropriate to the project, its goals, and the apparatus and process used in experimentation. Students should be conversant with the principles underlying the use of any apparatus, advanced or rudimentary, and especially how data obtained from the equipment relate to conclusions reached.

• Team vs Individual projects

The criteria for judging team projects are the same as for those done by individuals. It is important, however, that each member of the team demonstrates her/his significant contributions to the project and comprehensive understanding of it.  It is also important to demonstrate that

This can be accomplished through statements made in the interview by each team member and/or by questions asked by the judge. In conducting the interview, the judge should direct questions to individual team members, by name, to make sure that each one has an opportunity to speak.

This is especially important if the team has chosen to have one member make the formal presentation about the project or to direct certain questions to the team member with expertise in that area. After that team member has provided the forma presentation, immediately address questions to the other team member(s).

Because a team will have more physical and possibly brainpower resources than an individual, it is appropriate that teams be expected to produce higher quality projects than those working alone. Teams should demonstrate a synergistic effect, that the project is better because they came together. You should expect team projects to exceed individual efforts in at least the following:

  1. • Background research
  2. • Data collection – quantity and quality
  3. • Number of experimental repetitions

Remember that the best project should win, whether it is an individual or team effort.

Thank you for contributing your time and expertise for the benefit of North Carolina young people.

This booklet was prepared by Dr. Robert Allison of the Kern County Science Foundation, California and adapted for use in training judges at the regional and state levels of the North Carolina Science and Engineering Fair.