1. An independent Judge scores the exhibit based on the point breakdown as listed below and adds up the points for an overall score.
2. Step 1 is repeated for each of a exhibit's three Judges.
3. The overall scores of each exhibit's three Judges are averaged together to form that project's overall score.

I.  Creative Ability (30 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?
2. Creative research should support an investigation and help answer a questions 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 (30 points)
If an Engineering project, use section IIb. below instead of this section.

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 exhibitor recognize their need and were they correctly used?
6. Are there adequate data to support the conclusions?
7. Does the exhibitor recognize the data’s limitations?
8. Does the exhibitor understand the project’s ties to related research?
9. Does the exhibitor have an idea of what further research is warranted?
10. Did the exhibitor cite scientific literature, or only popular literature (i.e., local newspapers, Reader’s Digest).

II b. Engineering Goals (30 points) ENGINEERING CATEGORY ONLY

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 (15 points)

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 multiple trials?
4. How complete are the project notes?
5. Is the exhibitor aware of other approaches or theories?
6. How much time did the exhibitor spend on the project?
7. Is the exhibitor familiar with scientific literature in the studied field?
   

IV. Skill (15 points)

1. Does the exhibitor 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 exhibitor receive assistance from parents, teachers, scientists or engineers?
3. Was the project completed under adult supervision, or did the exhibitor work largely alone?
4. Where did the equipment come from?  Was it built independently by the exhibitor?  Was it obtained on loan?   Was it part of a laboratory where the exhibitor worked?
   

V.  Clarity (10 points)

1. How clearly does the exhibitor discuss his/her project and explain the purpose, procedure, and conclusions?
2. Does the written material reflect the exhibitor’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 exhibitor perform all the project work, or did someone help?

 

Since we do not make any scores known to the public, Judges are encouraged to leave contructive notes to help and motivate students.

Back to top

Last Updated: October 23, 2006