Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2016 – 2017 Handbook
for
Category and Organizational Judges
Prince William County Public Schools
Science and Family Life Education
703.791.7240
School Board
Mr. Ryan Sawyers Chairman
Mrs. Lillie G. Jessie
Vice Chairman Occoquan District
Mr. William J. Deutsch Mr. Gil Trenum Mr. Shawn L. Brann Coles District On Deployment Acting Member Brentsville District Brentsville District Ms. Diane L. Raulston Mr. Justin David Wilk Neabsco District Potomac District Mrs. Alyson A. Satterwhite Ms. Loree Y. Williams Gainesville District Woodbridge District
Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Steven L. Walts
Superintendent’s Staff Ms. Rae E. Darlington
Deputy Superintendent
Mr. William G. Bixby Associate Superintendent for Middle Schools
Mr. David S. Cline Associate Superintendent for Finance and Support Services
Mr. R. Todd Erickson Associate Superintendent for Central Elementary Schools
Mr. Craig H. Gfeller Associate Superintendent for Eastern Elementary Schools
Mrs. Rita Everett Goss Associate Superintendent for Student Learning and Accountability
Mrs. Jarcelynn M. Hart Associate Superintendent for Western Elementary Schools
Mr. Keith A. Imon Associate Superintendent for Communications and Technology Services
Mr. Keith J. Johnson Associate Superintendent for Human Resources
Mr. Michael A. Mulgrew Associate Superintendent for High Schools
P.O. BOX 389 MANASSAS, VA 20108 703.791.7200 WWW.PWCS.EDU
Prince William County Public Schools (PWCS) does not discriminate in employment or in its educational programs and activities against qualified individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, veteran status,
or disability. PWCS provides equal access to the Boy Scouts and other designated youth groups. The following individual will handle inquiries regarding nondiscrimination policies, including Section 504 and Title IX:
Associate Superintendent for Human Resources Prince William County Public Schools, P.O. Box 389, Manassas, VA 20108
Contents
Introduction
Schedules of Events
Directions to Prince William County Public Schools Kelly Leadership Center
Categories and Topic Descriptions
Judging Guidelines, Hints, and Suggested Questions
Project Evaluation/Judging Criteria
Appendix A: Samples of Judging Forms
January 3, 2017
Dear Regional Science Fair Judge,
Welcome to the 2016-17 Prince William-Manassas Regional Science Fair! On behalf of Prince
William County Public Schools (PWCS), I would like to thank you for contributing your time
and professional expertise to evaluating this year’s regional science fair projects and to providing
our students with quality feedback on their research efforts.
This handbook provides a complete schedule of events, detailed project evaluation criteria, and
samples of judging rubrics and other applicable documents. It also offers a few helpful judging
hints and a list of suggested questions for student interviews.
Please contact me if you have questions or require further information at 703.791.7240 or
Sincerely,
Julia Renberg
Director of Prince William-Manassas Regional Science Fair
Supervisor of Science and Family Life Education, PWCS
Middle Division (Grades 7 – 8)
Senior Division (Grades 9 – 12)
Schedule of Events
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Kelly Leadership Center
8 a.m.
Students arrive
8:30 – 9:00 a.m.
Judges breakfast
9:00 – 9:30 a.m.
Judges meeting
9:30 a.m. – 1p.m.
Project judging
1 – 2:30 p.m.
Additional judging of
selected projects
2:30–4 p.m.
Kelly Leadership Center closed to the public
4 p.m. Awards ceremony
Schedule of Events
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Kelly Leadership Center
8 a.m.
Students arrive
8:30 – 9:00 a.m.
Judges breakfast
9:00 – 9:30 a.m.
Judges meeting
9:30 a.m. – 1p.m.
Project judging
1 – 2:30 p.m.
Additional judging of
selected projects
2:30–4 p.m.
Kelly Leadership Center closed to the public
4 p.m. Awards ceremony
Junior Division (Grades 5 – 6)
Kelly Leadership Center
14715 Bristow Road
Manassas, VA 20112
PWCS Information: 703.791.7200
From I-95/Rt. 1:
Take Va-234 N/Dumfries Rd N. (Travel 7.9 miles)
Turn Left onto Bristow Rd/Va-619. (Travel 0.4 miles)
The Kelly Leadership Center is on the right
14715 Bristow Rd., Manassas, VA 20112-3945
From I-66:
Take Va-234 S via Exit 44 toward Manassas/Dumfries.
(Travel 14.5 miles)
Turn Right onto Independent Hill Rd. (Travel 0.4 miles)
Turn left onto Bristow Rd/Va-619. (Travel 0.6 miles)
The Kelly Leadership Center is on the left
14715 Bristow Rd., Manassas, VA 20112-3945
Directions to
Prince William County Public Schools
MIDDLE/SENIOR DIVISION (Grades 7–8 and 9–12)
Schools may enter two projects per category (exception: engineering categories for Grades 9-12).
Team projects of 2-3 students are allowed. Additional information can be found in the
2016 International Rules for Pre-college Research: Guidelines for Science and Engineering.
Category
Project Focus
Animal Sciences (AS) genetics (all but human); pathology; physiology; and systematics
(taxonomy, phylogeny, classification)
Behavioral and Social Sciences (BE) clinical & developmental psychology; cognitive physiological psychology,
and sociology
Biochemistry (BI) chemistry of life processes: molecular biology, molecular genetics,
enzymes, photosynthesis, blood, protein, or food chemistry; and hormones
Chemistry (CH) analytical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and physical
chemistry
Computer Science (CS) algorithms and data bases; artificial intelligence; networking and
communications; graphics, simulations/virtual reality; computer and
operating systems; computational science; and software engineering
Earth & Planetary Sciences (ES) climatology, weather; geochemistry; mineralogy; paleontology;
geophysics; and tectonics
*Engineering (EN–M&B) and (EN–E&M)
*combined for Grades 7–8 (two entries);
separate categories for Grades 9–12 (one entry
per sub-category)
Materials & Bioengineering (EN—M&B)
bioengineering; civil engineering; constructional engineering; chemical
engineering; industrial engineering; and materials science
Electrical and Mechanical (EN—E&M)
electrical engineering; computer engineering; mechanical engineering; and
robotics
Environmental Sciences (EV) air pollution, air quality; soil contamination, soil quality; water pollution,
water quality; bioremediation; environmental engineering; land resource
management; recycling; and waste management
Mathematics (MA) algebra; geometry; probability and statistics; and applied mathematics
Medicine & Health Sciences (MH) disease diagnosis and treatment; epidemiology; human genetics; and
pathophysiology
Microbiology (MI) bacteriology; virology; microbial genetics; and antibiotics, antimicrobials
Physics & Astronomy (PH) atoms, molecules, solids; instrumentation and electronics; nuclear and
particle physics; optics, laser, theoretical physics; astronomy; and planetary
science
Plant Sciences (PS) agriculture, agronomy, horticulture, forestry, plant taxonomy & evolution,
plant physiology, plant pathology, and plant genetics
Categories and Topic Descriptions
JUNIOR DIVISION (Grades 5-6)
Schools may enter one project per category.
Group projects of no more than two students are allowed.
Category Project Focus
Animal Sciences (AS) animal genetics; animal husbandry; animal physiology; invertebrate and
vertebrate studies (except behavioral studies)
Behavioral and Social Sciences (BE) clinical and developmental psychology; cognitive physiology, and
sociology (This category includes linguistics, learning, perception;
reading problems; public opinion surveys; educational testing.)
Chemistry (CH) analytical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, and general
chemistry (This category includes product testing—shampoos, dyes,
detergents, diapers, markers, nail polish, etc.—plastics, fuels, pesticides)
Computer Science (CS) algorithms and data bases; networking and communications; graphics,
simulations/virtual reality; computer and operating systems
Earth & Space Sciences (ES) geology, mineralogy, oceanography, climatology, weather, astronomy,
seismology, and paleontology
Engineering & Mathematics (EM) technology applications: civil, mechanical, aeronautical, chemical, and
industrial engineering; material science; robotics; algebra, geometry, and
probability and statistics (mathematical analysis of data)
Environmental Sciences (EV) air pollution/quality; water pollution/quality; soil contamination/equality;
bioremediation; environmental engineering; forestry, recycling, and waste
management
Medicine & Health Sciences (MH) disease diagnosis and treatment; epidemiology; human genetics;
pathophysiology; antibiotics and antimicrobials (bacterial and yeast studies
as they impact human health) (This category includes dentistry,
pharmacology, ophthalmology, nutrition, pediatrics, dermatology,
allergies, and speech and hearing.)
Physics (PH) atoms, molecules, and solids; magnetics and electromagnetics; nuclear and
particle physics optics, and acoustics
Plant Sciences (PS) agriculture, agronomy, horticulture, forestry, plant taxonomy and
evolution, plant physiology, plant pathology, plant genetics, and fungi
studies
Categories and Topic Descriptions
Each entry should be judged in the domains of 1) the scientific research process, and
2) the intellectual creativity and uniqueness of the product.
The evaluation rubric encompasses 6 criteria categories and allows for 100 possible
points.
Every student should have an opportunity to present his or her project and to be
actively interviewed for about 5-10 minutes by at least two or more judges.
Judges should not complete scoring evaluations in the presence of students.
Each judge should rank evaluated projects based on the number of total points earned.
Judges meet and share their project rankings on the Consensus Worksheet
(Appendix A). Note: discussion and possible reevaluation of projects may occur.
Judges should arrive at a group consensus and record the place winners on the Report
of Awards (Appendix A).
Judging Guidelines
Examine the quality of the student’s work and how well the student understands the
project and the area of study. The physical display is important, but secondary to the
student’s knowledge of the research.
Look for evidence of laboratory or field work, not just library research.
Keep in mind the age of the student. Sometimes judges give students either far more
credit than deserved or not enough because it is not in the Nobel Prize category.
Compare displays and presentations only in the same category and not with projects
seen elsewhere or under other circumstances.
If the student(s) is/are present:
Keep in mind that the fair is not only a competition, but also an educational and
inspirational experience for students. The high point of the fair for most students is
their face-to-face interview with the judges. For this reason, please use encouraging
tone when asking questions, offering suggestions, or giving constructive criticism.
Remember that students have a prospect of revising and/or expanding on their
projects in the future. Engage students in self-reflection as an opportunity to let you
know if they are aware of any shortcomings in the research or procedure.
Judging Hints
Background Knowledge Why did you decide on this research?
What was the purpose of your project?
What resource did you find that was helpful? Why?
Experimental Design What was your hypothesis?
What variable did you intentionally change?
What response did you observe or measure?
What did you intentionally keep the same?
What group did you compare against the others? Why?
How many times did you repeat the experiment?
Materials and Methods
What materials did you use?
What steps did you follow in conducting the experiment?
If you had a mentor, in what ways did the mentor assist you?
Results/Conclusion
What were the results of your experiment?
How did the results relate to your original hypothesis?
What conclusions did you make?
If you conducted the experiment again, what would you do differently?
What additional experiments would you suggest?
Which groups in the community would be interested in your research?
What recommendations would you make to these groups?
What was the most important thing you learned from the experiment?
From Cothron, Giese, & Rezba. Students and Research, Kendall/Hunt, 1989.
Suggested Questions for Student Interviews
Appendix A
Samples of Judging Forms
Background Knowledge (0-10 points)
Depth of study (key concepts; literature review)
Information is presented clearly
Experimental Design (0-25 points)
Question is clearly identified Hypothesis is clearly stated; related to the question Procedure clearly tests the hypothesis Experiment was replicated at least 3 times for reliability Sample size was large enough to conclude it was not chance All variables are clearly identified (manipulated, responding, and controls)
Results/Conclusion (0-30 points)
Results are presented with chart, table, or graph
(including scale, title, labels, correct units)
Results are directly related to the question and hypothesis
(support/do not support)
Lab notebook contains raw data and orderly recording of data
Thorough interpretation of data
Conclusion is logical and based on data collected
Conclusion includes questions for future research
Display (0-10 points)
All components are present
Evidence of correct grammar, sentence structure, spelling
Clarity (0-10 points)
Communicates scientific basis of research
Describes design principles, explains data analysis procedures
Recognizes study limitations
Creative Ability/Originality (0-15 points)
Shows creativity and originality in question posed
Innovative approach to solving the problem and using equipment
Study was within the student’s ability range, excessive help not utilized
Project Evaluation/Judging Criteria: Grades 5-8
Evaluation Criteria
Grades 5–8
Category & Project Number Ex. (BE9)
Background Knowledge (0–10pts.)
Project shows depth of study (key science concepts, literature
review); information is presented clearly and logically
Experimental Design/Procedure (0–25 pts.)
Question is identified; hypothesis is clearly stated and relates
directly to the question; procedure tests hypothesis; experiment
replicated (3 times, minimum); sample size adequate to conclude
result is not due to chance; and variables identified (manipulated,
responding, controls, and constants)
Results/Conclusion (0–30 pts.)
Evidence of data (results in charts, tables, or graphs, including
correct scale, title, labels, units); results directly related to
hypothesis (supports/does not support); evidence of raw data
recorded; thorough interpretation of data; conclusion is logical and
based on data; and conclusion includes questions for future research
Display (0–10 pts.)
All components present; evidence of correct grammar, sentence
structure, and spelling
Clarity (Verbal or Written) (0–10 pts.)
Communicates scientific basis of research; description of design
principles; explanation of data analysis procedure; and recognition
of study limitation
Creative Ability/Originality/Skill (0–15 pts.)
GRAND TOTAL
Background Knowledge (0–9 points)
Key scientific concepts
Literature review
Evidence of procedural plan
Experimental Design (0–24 points)
Components
Hypothesis Testable relationship between variables
Independent Variable (IV) Factor purposefully changed
Dependent Variable (DV) Factor that responds
Constants Factors kept the same
Control Used as a standard comparison
Repeated Trials Number of subjects or times repeated
Clearly stated objective
Clear and precise procedure
Results/Conclusion (0–1 points)
Choice of data display (table, chart, graph, etc.) is appropriate
Data displays reflect IV, DV, derived quantities, units
Discussion of data includes references to the data, a statement of how the data do or
do not support the hypothesis
Major findings are stated
Thorough interpretations of data are made
Implications for further study; significant, practical applications are identified
Display (0–9 points)
Accurate and complete
Attractive and legible; correct grammar and spelling
Consistent with science fair regulations
Clarity: Interview and Research Paper (0–12 points)
Communicates scientific basis
Describes design principles
Explains data
Recognizes limitations
Creative Ability/Originality (0–25 points)
Research design reflects novel approach to the problem posed
Analysis and interpretation of data demonstrates logical thinking
Design and use of equipment shows creative approaches
*Note: Team projects are now included with category and have same evaluation criteria
Project Evaluation/Judging Criteria: Grades 9–12
Evaluation Criteria
Grades 9–12
Category & Project Number Ex. (CH10)
Background Knowledge (0–9pts.)
Key science concepts and literature review are evident; a clear and
logical procedural plan has been formulated
Experimental Design/Procedure (0–24 pts.)
Evidence of: hypothesis; independent variable; dependent variable;
constants; controls; repeated trials (at least three); multiple test
subjects; clear purpose or objective; and precise procedure
Results/Conclusion (0–21 pts.)
Evidence of: data tables (IV, DV, derived quantities, and units
provided); graphs (correct type, scales, title, line-of-best-fit);
summary (sentences/paragraphs about tables or graphs), statement of
how data supports/does not support hypothesis; major findings
summarized thorough interpretation of data; and significant practical
applications of research identified
Display (0–9 pts.)
All components present; sturdy construction; evidence of correct
grammar, sentence structure, and spelling
Clarity (Verbal or Written) (0–12 pts.)
Communicates scientific basis of research (application of literature
review); description of design principles; explanation of data analysis
procedure; and recognition of study limitation
Creative Ability/Originality/Skill (0–25 pts.)
Shows creativity and originality in questions posed; innovative
approach to solving the problem and use of equipment; logical
thinking evident in data analysis; consideration given to equipment
design and construction; and study was within student’s ability range
(excessive help not utilized)
GRAND TOTAL
Background Knowledge and Plan
Knowledge of basic scientific concepts related to the experimental topic. An advanced
project may include a formal literature review.
Have key scientific concepts been developed?
Has a review of literature been done?
Did the student cite scientific literature as opposed to popular resources only?
Was there evidence of a procedural plan to obtain an answer to the research question?
Experimental Design/Procedures
Articulation of hypothesis, independent and dependent variables, constants, controls, and
repeated trials.
Did the project have a clear objective?
Was there a testable relationship between variables?
Did the independent variable change?
Did the dependent variable respond to a change in the independent variable?
If controls were necessary, were they used as a standard for comparison?
Were there adequate data to support a conclusion?
Clear and precise description of materials used and steps followed.
Was there a clear and accurate description of materials used?
Was there a description of the steps and procedures followed?
Results/Conclusions
Presentation of data in tables, graphs, and summary sentences or paragraphs in support of the
hypothesis.
Were the data tables clearly and accurately labeled?
Were appropriate graphs used?
Were summary sentences and paragraphs used with each table and graph?
Was there a statement of how the data do or do not support the hypothesis?
Description of Evaluation Criteria
Results/Conclusions (continued)
Major findings, interpretations, suggestions for further study, and applications.
Were the major findings adequately described?
Was the purpose carried out to completion within the scope of the original intent?
Were the interpretations of the major findings correct or within reason?
Did the student have an idea of what further research is warranted?
Did the student understand the project’s ties to related research?
Could the solution be utilized successfully in design of some end product?
Display
Attractive, legible, accurate, and consistent with fair regulations.
Was the display attractive and complete?
Was there evidence of correct grammar and spelling?
Was the display consistent with fair regulations?
Clarity
The project communicates a scientific research basis, describes design principles, explains
data analysis procedures, and recognizes limitations. It shows project evolution over time, the
influence of other individuals, and future implications.
How clearly could the student discuss the project and explain the project’s purpose,
procedure, and conclusion?
Did the written material reflect the student’s understanding of the research?
Were the important phases of the project presented in an orderly manner?
Were the data/results presented clearly?
How well did the project display explain itself?
Did the student do all the exhibit work or did someone else help?
Did the student recognize the limitations of the project?
(continued on the next page)
Creative Ability/Originality
Creative research should support an investigation and help answer a question in an original
way. An innovative idea for a project should show greater creativity than a suggested project
from a textbook.
Did the project show creative ability and originality in the questions asked?
Was there an original way to use available equipment or the student
designed/constructed new equipment?
Was there creative thinking in the analysis/interpretation of data?
Was the original approach used to solve the problem?
Note: If a student received assistance from an outside source, credit for creative ability
should reflect the student’s
Category: _________________________________________________
Project
Number
Judge
1
Judge
2
Judge
3
Judge
4
Judge
5
Judge
6
Total
Relative
Ranking
PLACE
1. List in numerical sequence all projects considered for an award.
2. Each judge should record the relative rankings of his or her own evaluation: project with highest points
earned receives a ranking of 10; next highest receives nine, etc.
3. Total the relative rankings for each project.
4. Determine places by the total relative rankings.
5. No more than three Honorable Mentions should be awarded.
6. Record the order in the place column.
7. Transfer the information to the Category Awards Report Form.
Consensus Worksheet for Category Judges
Category: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Division (circle one): Junior (Grades 5–6) Middle (Grades 7–8) Senior (Grades 9–12)
Award Project
Number
Project Title
First Place
Second Place
Third Place
Honorable Mention
Honorable Mention
Honorable Mention
Judges Initials: __________ __________ __________ __________
Submit this Category Awards Report, along with the Consensus Worksheet for Category Judges, to Science Fair Personnel
Prince William-Manassas Regional Science Fair
Division Category Awards Report
Organization: _______________________________________________________________________________
Names of Judges:
Award Project
Number
Project Title
First Place
Second Place
Third Place
Honorable Mention
Honorable Mention
Honorable Mention
Description of Organizational Award:
Submit this Organizational Awards Report to Science Fair Personnel
Prince William-Manassas Regional Science Fair
Organizational Awards Report Grades 7–12
NOTES
