IMPORTANT POINTS FOR ALL JUDGES

1. Judges should keep in mind that NMSEF is not only a competition, but an educational and motivating experience for students.  The high point of the Science Fair experience for the majority of students is their interviews with the judges.  Please be positive and gentle with suggestions of improvements.  Give encouragement and constructive criticism for the work accomplished.  Remember the age and delicate self-esteem of the students with whom you are working.

2. Judges may not ask student exhibitors for their name, their school name, or where they're from.  All Student Exhibitors should only be referred to by Exhibit Number.

3. Students may have worked on a research project for more than one year.  However, for the purpose of judging, only research conducted within the current year is to be evaluated.  Although previous work is important, it should not be considered as part of this year’s project.

4. Examine the quality of the finalist’s work, and how well the finalist understands his or her project and area of study.  The physical display is secondary to the student’s knowledge of the subject.  As mentioned earlier, if the project is a multi-year effort, the Student Exhibitor is required to have a Continuation Form (Intel ISEF Form 7) visible at the project.  Please be aware of the fact that the only work being judged should be that completed in the year prior to this Science Fair (2011). 

5. When research is conducted in an industrial or institutional setting, the student is required to have documentation (Intel ISEF Form 1C), that provides a forum for the mentor or supervisor to discuss the project. Judges should review this information in detail when evaluating research.

6. Look for evidence of laboratory, field or theoretical work, not just library research or gadgeteering.

7. Compare projects only with those in the same competition and not with projects seen elsewhere under other circumstances.

8. As a general rule, judges represent professional authority to finalists.  For this reason, judges should use an encouraging tone when asking questions, offering suggestions or giving constructive criticism.  Judges should not criticize, treat lightly, or display boredom toward projects they personally consider unimportant.  Always give credit to the finalist for completing a challenging task and/or for their success in previous competitions.

9. Keep in mind that projects are middle-high and high-school level, not Ph.D. or professional levels.  Sometimes judges tend to go to extremes, giving students either far more credit than they deserve or not enough because it is not in the Nobel Prize category.

10. Please be discreet when discussing winners or making critical comments about judging, as students or adult escorts might overhear them.  All results  are confidential until announced at the awards ceremonies.

11. Harassment refers to behavior that is personally offensive, impairs morale, or interferes with the ability of exhibitors to perform well.  Any harassment of a Student Exhibitor will not be tolerated.  This policy refers to harassment due to age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, sex, physical or mental disability.  Harassment includes unsolicited remarks, gestures, or physical contact.  Sexual harassment includes sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other conduct which is sexual and offensive.  We ask that you be aware of any conduct that might be interpreted as inappropriate.

12. Please keep in mind that the only people allowed in the Exhibit Hall during judging will be judges.  If you bring any additional guests, please remind them that they will not be allowed in the Exhibit Halls except during Public Viewing.

JUDGING PROCEDURES—CATEGORY AWARDS

Category awards are based on the recognition of excellence in the conception and realization of a science or engineering project.  Senior division awards recognize student capabilities leading to careers in science or engineering, and they may include college scholarships.  Junior division awards encourage the student to make further efforts in the study of science and engineering.

A list of all of the exhibits is provided in the judge's packet.  Exhibits are grouped by division and category.  Student exhibitors select the category in which they wish their exhibit to be judged.  Only under very exceptional circumstances do NMSEF officials move an exhibit from one category to another.

The judging is based on a two-step evaluation process.  Initially, the exhibits are judged in the absence of the exhibitors.  After the committees caucus, interviews are conducted, followed by final evaluations by committees.

 

Initial Briefing

Judging Assignments and Caucus Rooms are listed in judging packets.  Judges must report to their assigned caucus room for initial briefing by the committee chairperson before going to the Exhibit Hall.

 

Initial Rating of Exhibits

At each of their assigned exhibits judges rate the exhibit on the basis of the five criteria described below.  Scores are recorded on the Judging Forms provided.  Ratings should be done individually and judges should initially judge all the exhibits assigned to them.  All of this ensures that initially each exhibit will receive three independent evaluations.  After the initial rating of exhibits, if judges have time, they are urged to survey the other exhibits in their category so that they can enter into later committee discussions regarding projects in the category.

Back to top.

 

Judging Criteria

Five judging criteria are used to rank the exhibits within each category. Each exhibit will receive a numerical score from each judge.  The five criteria  and the point value range assigned each of the criteria is listed below. The questions listed under the various criteria suggest the line of thought for evaluation purposes.  Please remember that each criterion must stand on its own merits for rating and should therefore be judged independently of the others.

Scientific Thought and Engineering Goals

Scientific Thought and Engineering Goals are separated into IIa. and IIb. to be used appropriately by category. 

I.  Creative Ability (Individual - 30)

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?

2. Creative research should support an investigation and help answer a question in an original way.

3. A creative contribution promotes an efficient and reliable method for solving a problem. When evaluating projects, it is important  to distinguish between gadgeteering and ingenuity.

II a.  Scientific Thought  (Individual - 30)

For an engineering project, or some projects in categories such as computer science and mathematical sciences, the more appropriate questions are those found in IIb, Engineering Goals.

1. Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously?

2. Was the problem sufficiently limited to allow plausible approach? Good scientists can identify important problems capable of solutions.

3. Was there a procedural plan for obtaining a solution?

4. Are the variables clearly recognized and defined?

5. If controls were necessary, did the student recognize their need and were they correctly used?

6. Are there adequate data to support the conclusions?

7. Does the finalist recognize the data’s limitations?

8. Does the finalist understand the project’s ties to related research?

9. Does the finalist have an idea of what further research is warranted?

10. Did the finalist cite scientific literature, or only popular literature (i.e., local newspapers, Reader’s  Digest).

II b. Engineering Goals (Individual - 30)

1. Does the project have a clear objective?

2. Is the objective relevant to the potential user’s needs?

3. Is the solution workable?  acceptable to the potential user?  economically feasible?

4. Could the solution be utilized successfully in design or construction of an end product?

5. Is the solution a significant improvement over previous alternatives?

6. Has the solution been tested for performance under the conditions of use?

III.  Thoroughness (Individual - 15)

1. Was the purpose carried out to completion within the scope of the original intent?

2. How completely was the problem covered?

3. Are the conclusions based on a single experiment or replication?

4. How complete are the project notes?

5. Is the finalist aware of other approaches or theories?

6. How much time did the finalist spend on the project?

7. Is the finalist familiar with scientific literature in the studied field?

IV.  Skill (Individual - 15)

1. Does the finalist have the required laboratory, computation, observational and design skills to obtain supporting data?

2. Where was the project performed?  (i.e., home, school laboratory, university laboratory)  Did the student receive assistance from parents, teachers, scientists or engineers?

3. Was the project completed under adult supervision, or did the student work largely alone?

4. Where did the equipment come from?  Was it built independently by the finalist?  Was it obtained on loan?   Was it part of a laboratory where the finalist worked?

V.  Clarity (Individual - 10)

1. How clearly does the finalist discuss his/her project and explain the purpose, procedure, and conclusions?  Watch out for memorized speeches that reflect little understanding of principles.

2. Does the written material reflect the finalist’s understanding of the research?

3. Are the important phases of the project presented in an orderly manner?

4. How clearly is the data presented?

5. How clearly are the results presented?

6. How well does the project display explain the project?

7. Was the presentation done in a forthright manner, without tricks or gadgets?

8. Did the finalist perform all the project work, or did someone help?

Back to top.

 

Caucuses and Interviewing Exhibitors

First Caucus:  Preliminary Scoring

Judges within each group or category meet in caucus at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the merits of individual exhibits.  At that time, preliminary scoring totals will be available.  These scores are used to determine potentially outstanding exhibits and make interviewing assignments.  Judges should freely discuss both the merits and shortcomings of the exhibits in their category. 

 

Interviewing the Exhibitors

The exhibitors will be at their exhibits from 10:30 a.m.-12:00 noon.  Judges will interview the students whose exhibits they judged earlier in the morning.  In addition, top contenders should be interviewed by as many judges as possible.  The committee chairperson may want to make specific interviewing assignments. 

The importance of this portion of the judge's function cannot be overemphasized.  The interview is perhaps the most educational aspect of the Science Fair experience.  The interview provides a means for the judge to evaluate the exhibit more accurately and should also serve to stimulate the student's thinking, to suggest means of improving the work and working habits, to point out errors, and to provide feedback for the student from the judge, who is most likely a specialist in a given field.  Science education within the State can only benefit from this practice, so be encouraging and supportive to the student.

Special care must be taken, especially in the Junior Division, not to intimidate the exhibitors. For many students, the interview is an extremely traumatic experience.  Judges should go out of their way to make the exhibitors feel comfortable. A positive experience with a judge during the interview may encourage the student to pursue further scientific investigation, possibly leading to a career in science or engineering, whereas, an unpleasant, frightening experience may turn the student away from these disciplines indefinitely.  Judges should not criticize, treat lightly, or display boredom toward projects they personally consider unimportant.  Always give credit to the finalist for completing a challenging task and/or for their success in previous competitions.

 

Back to top.

 

Second Caucus:  Determining the Awards

Following the interviews with the exhibitors, a second caucus is held to determine final placing of the exhibitors within each category.  The students' preliminary placing together with their performance during the interview should be taken into consideration for the final evaluation of their exhibits.

The total number of regular awards made in each category must be limited to six.   There will be a first, a second, and a third place award, with up to three honorable mentions.  Once final results have been determined, all judges except the committee chairpersons are free to leave.

Judge's Comment Form

Several Judge's Comments Forms are included in each Judge's Packet.  A comment form must be completed for each exhibit judged.  These forms are based largely on the judging criteria scores which are produced during the morning judging session.  These forms should be filled out at the end of the Second Caucus.

Unless you wish to provide personal guidance subsequent to the science fair, you should not sign the form.  Give the completed forms to your chairperson who will turn them in to Science Fair personnel.  They will be given to the exhibitors following the fair.  The purpose of the forms is to provide a means by which science fair judges can influence the preparation of future exhibits.  These comments should, therefore, be made in a spirit of constructive suggestions and encouragement.

---

All results are CONFIDENTIAL until announced at the Awards Ceremonies.  Judges may not inform student exhibitors of final decisions made for any award.  Please be discreet when discussing winners or making critical comments as students or adult sponsors might overhear. 

---

Back to top.

DUTIES OF THE CATEGORY (Committee) CHAIRPERSON

As a Category (Committee) Chairperson,  you have several additional important responsibilities.  You may or may not be assigned exhibits to judge, depending on judge to project ratio.  Please make sure you read and understand the judging procedures above, in addition, the following information will help you complete your duties as assigned.

Initial Briefing

• Take a roll call of the members of your judging committee, and reassign the exhibits of any no-show judges. 

• Review the judging procedures, especially with new judges. 

• Remind all judges that they are not to break for lunch until after the second caucus.

• Make sure that all exhibits are judged by three judges.  There will be a small form at all exhibits helping us ensure that all projects are interviewed.  All judges who interview a student must initial on the form provided at each project. 

Each category will be assigned a student helper.  Discuss the judging procedures with the committee's student helper.  The helper will use the Master Tally Sheet located in your packet.  The numbers of exhibits to be judged have been printed on these sheets.  Make sure that they all are correct.  Give the sheets to your helper, and inform him or her of responsibilities with regard to these sheets:

1. After initial judging, each judge will hand their completed Judging Form to the helper, who will record the judge's number and ratings on the Tally Sheet.  It is important that the helper double check the exhibit number.  The helper will retain the Judging Forms.  As the initial judging for each exhibit is completed, the helper should begin calculation of scores.

2.  When the initial judging is complete, and before the helper leaves the Exhibit Hall,  check with the helper to be sure that every exhibit has been judged by three judges.  If any exhibit has been overlooked, it may be necessary for you, the chairperson, to judge the exhibit.

Back to top.

Determining the Category Awards

After you have determined that all of the exhibits in your category have been judged, take the Tally Sheets and the Judging Forms from the helpers and complete or check the calculations of the scores for each exhibit.  This simply involves totaling the three ratings for each category and  adding up the totals.  A perfect score would be 300.  Generally the student helpers can finish the calculations by the time the initial judging is finished.

• During the first caucus, make sure that the judges understand that they are to interview all of the students whose exhibits they judged earlier in the morning.  It is extremely important that every exhibitor be interviewed by at least three judges.  If the judges interview every exhibitor whose exhibit they judged earlier, each exhibitor will be interviewed by at least three judges.  Also, discuss the top exhibits and encourage your committee members to interview as many of the top exhibitors as possible. 

• During the second caucus after the interviews, poll the committee for the selection of winners in your category. As a first step, a paper ballot may be taken from each member of your committee, including the chairperson, listing each individual's first, second, and third choice.  The results of the paper ballot may be tabulated on a chalkboard to form a basis for open discussion, leading to the determination of the final awards.

• Note that the total number of category awards is limited to six.  See the section under Second Caucus: Determining the Awards for details. 

• During the second caucus, please require your judges to complete Comment Forms for each exhibit they judged.

• In addition to judging for the regular awards in your category, your committee may be asked to judge one or more special awards.  If so, the criteria for the award(s) will be found in your packet.

• Bring your final results to the 2nd Floor of the Joseph A. Fidel Student Center as soon as judging is complete.  Also, turn in all Tally Sheets, Judging Forms, Judge's Questionnaires, and Comment Forms at that time. 

Back to top.

Determining the Overall Winners

At 12:50 p.m., after your category results have been submitted, the four groups of chairpersons, Junior Life Sciences, Junior Physical Sciences, Senior Life Sciences, and Senior Physical Sciences, will caucus for the purpose of determining the overall winners.  Both Junior and Senior Division Chairpersons will meet in Cramer Hall. 

• Junior Division Chairpersons will meet in Cramer  101

• Senior Division Chairpersons will meet in Cramer 120. 

Chairpersons should meet with others in their section (i.e. Junior Physical Sciences, Junior Life Sciences, Senior Physical Sciences and Senior Life Sciences).  The fair director and/or the fair coordinator will be available to provide any assistance that may be needed.

Exhibitors will be available at their exhibits from 1:30-3:30 p.m. for final interviewing of all award judging.

Please note that the overall winners of the Senior Division from the State Science Fair, should be the best exhibits in the State and will represent New Mexico at the Intel ISEF as such.  The fact that a student has already won a trip to the Intel ISEF in one of the regional fairs does not exclude him or her from consideration at the state level.  If a regional finalist also wins at state, an alternate from that region will move up at the regional level to become a regional finalist.  We want to be sure that the Intel ISEF finalists who represent the state fair are the best exhibitors in the State.

---

Back to top.

JUDGING FOR SPECIAL AWARDS

Guiding Principles - Each year, many professional organizations, representing a wide variety of scientific disciplines, join NMSEF to become Special Awards Sponsors. These governmental, industrial and educational institutions present scholarships, plaques, certificates, subscriptions to professional journals and books to exhibitors. Special Awards judges are recruited by the sponsoring organization to choose the winners of their awards and are given to exhibits based on each individual awards' own criteria. 

Procedures -

• Early registration for all judges will begin at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1.  Please note:  Judges will not be permitted to enter the Exhibit Hall on Friday.

• Registration on Saturday will be between 7:15 a.m. and 12:00 noon.   

• Please keep in mind that the only people allowed in the Exhibit Hall during judging will be judges.  If you bring any additional guests, please remind them that they will not be allowed in the Exhibit Halls except during Public Viewing.

• Special Judge packets will include a list of all exhibits (Catalog of Exhibits) which lists project by division, category and title, lunch tickets and nametags.  Nametags serve as official identification and are necessary for access to the Exhibit Hall.  

• Special Awards judges should check all projects because a category does not always clearly indicate the type of project. Example: A project involving an organism's reaction to high acceleration might be found in Medicine & Health Sciences or Earth & Planetary Science.

• Please see the Important Points for All Judges section of this page for information necessary for all judges.

• Special Awards Judges may meet in any of the classrooms in the Mineral Science & Engineering Complex (MSEC) at any time during their judging should they need a place to gather that is apart from the exhibit area.  These classrooms are MSEC 101, 103, 105, and 109. 

• No special judging forms are made available to Special Awards Judges.  They may use whatever system of tabulation and evaluation that they find convenient.  In no case may Special Awards Judges use the small Judging Forms, found at the exhibits, for the purpose of scoring their special awards.  Judging Forms are reserved for category award evaluation only. 

• Special Awards Judges are not released until their results have been submitted.  Special Awards Judges should report their results to Science Fair personnel in the Admissions Office located on the Second Floor of the Joseph A. Fidel Student Center.  Science Fair personnel reserve the right to assign personnel to determine winners whose results have not been submitted by 4:00 p.m. 

• All results are CONFIDENTIAL until announced at the Awards Ceremonies.  Judges may not inform student exhibitors of final decisions made for any award.  Please be discreet when discussing winners or making critical comments as students or adult sponsors might overhear. 

• Student winners, addresses, title of project, category, school will be mailed to the award sponsors following the Fair. 

Back to top.

Judging Forms - No special judging forms are made available to Special Awards Judges.  They may use whatever system of tabulation and evaluation that they find convenient.  In no case may Special Awards Judges use the small Judging Forms, found at the exhibits, for the purpose of scoring their special awards.  Judging Forms are reserved for category award evaluation only. 

Results - Immediately after judging is complete, Special Awards Judges should report their results to Science Fair personnel in the Admissions Office located on the Second Floor of the Joseph A. Fidel Student Center.  Special Awards Judges are not released until their results have been submitted.  Science Fair personnel reserve the right to assign personnel to determine winners whose results have not been submitted by 4:00 p.m.

All results are CONFIDENTIAL until announced at the Awards Ceremonies.  Judges may not inform student exhibitors of final decisions made for any award.  Please be discreet when discussing winners or making critical comments as students or adult sponsors might overhear. 

Student winners, addresses, title of project, category, school will be mailed to the award sponsors following the Fair.