Judging Guidelines

Philosophy | Procedures | Criteria & Forms | Specialty Judging

Science fairs provide young people who are motivated towards science with an occasion to have their work evaluated. These fairs constitute an important source of encouragement to students to develop interests beyond the constraints of the formal education environment.

Exhibitors in the VIRSF are students ranging from Grades 4 through 12. They should enjoy and learn from every stage of doing a project – even being judged.

In evaluating their efforts you have the opportunity to:

Exchange and share your knowledge with the young people.
Provide advice on how they may get more out of their work in science.
Encourage them in doing science and in thinking and working scientifically

They are competing for trophies, plaques and ribbons, and subject to availability of funds, for expense-paid trips to compete as regional representatives in the Canada-Wide Science Fair (grades 7 through 12 only). Four divisions are recognized: Elementary (grades 4 & 5), Intermediate (grades 6 & 7), Junior (grades 8 & 9), and Senior (grades 10, 11 &12). The exhibits are assigned to judges (approximately 4-6 per judge) based on areas of expertise.

Judging Philosophy

It is the student’s work in planning and executing a science project which is to be judged. The exhibit should be regarded as a reflection of a student’s work, but this should be verified through questioning (help received from others should be acknowledged and should be considered by judges). Projects should involve laboratory, field, or theoretical investigations. Library research and collections may be worthwhile supplements but, by themselves, these do not normally merit a high rating. Equipment construction should involve a creative approach or an original idea to merit a high rating. Commercially fabricated equipment may be used in exhibits, but the impressiveness or “glitter” of such equipment should not affect an evaluation. Remember, it is the STUDENT’S work which is to be judged.

All entries should be judged according to relative merit without regard to the student’s age. [Divisions ensure that younger students will have a fair opportunity to win awards]. However, the exhibitors are not Ph.D. candidates – they are elementary or secondary school students and should be judged against an appropriate standard.

Judging Procedures

All project submissions are formed into groups based on the students’ grade and the subject area. Based on the information provided at registration, each judge is assigned to a team whose responsibility it is to rank all projects in one of the project groups. These rankings are based on: (1) written reports provided by the students before the fair, (2) student/judge interviews on the morning of the fair, and (3) judge team discussions conducted after all interviews are completed.

Reports: In the week prior to the fair, judges are provided with copies of the students’ written reports which will allow time to form an overall first impression of each project, and to prepare questions for the students during the interview sessions on the day of the fair. Please keep in mind that students are limited to 5 pages for their reports and are not required to include plots or tables of their data.

Interviews: On the day of the fair, 15-minute interviews will be scheduled for each judge to meet with each of their students and discuss their projects. It is important to arrive on time and adhere to the schedule, in order to provide all judges the opportunity to complete their interviews.

At the outset, judges should give the student an opportunity to make an oral presentation, when you will be looking for a clear explanation that shows interest, enthusiasm, care and understanding. Then use a question and discussion time to ascertain his/her level of understanding of the project and related fields and to clarify the objectives and methodology of the project. It is important to find something positive to comment on. Once you have completed the interview, do two things:

assign scores using the appropriate Marking Form (see below) according to the student’s grade and project type, and
complete a judge’s comments form as feedback for the student.

Team meetings: Following the interview sessions, all judges on a team reconvene to discuss their projects and arrive at an overall ranking. Project evaluations should take into account the criteria supplied in the marking forms, as well as the overall strength of the project (see Judging Criteria). Because each project is typically judged by 3-4 judges, there will be opportunities for the team to compare and contrast projects. Rankings are reported to the Chief Judge.

Round 2 judging: At least one member of each team is requested to participate in the second round of judging, during which time the top projects from different subject areas at the same grade level are compared. The Chief Judge will coordinate this round, requesting individual judges to evaluate projects from a subject area they did not see in the first round. Based on these evaluations, final rankings are determined for each grade level.

Judging Criteria

Exhibits are to be judged on the basis of:

overall scientific strength (see examples below for each project type)

criteria that vary slightly according to the student’s grade and project type (see Marking Forms below)., and
the degree to which the project represents the student’s own work.

Project Types

Examples of scientifically strong, good, fair and weak projects are given for each project type.

Experiment

An investigation undertaken to test a specific hypothesis using experiments. Experimental variables, if identified, are controlled to some extent.

Strong	Devise and carry out original experimental research which attempts to control or investigate most significant variables. Data analysis includes statistical analysis.
Good	Devise and carry out an original experiment with controls. Variables are identified. Some significant variables are controlled. Data analysis includes graphic presentation with simple statistics.
Fair	Extend a known experiment through modification of procedures, data gathering and application.
Weak	Duplicating a known experiment to confirm the hypothesis. Hypothesis is totally predictable.

Study

A collection and analysis of data to reveal evidence of a fact, situation or pattern of scientific interest. It could include a study of cause and effect relationships or theoretical investigations of scientific data. Variables, if identified, are by their nature not feasible to control, but an effort to make meaningful correlation is encouraged.

Strong	Study correlating information from a variety of significant sources which may illustrate cause and effect or original solutions to current problems through synthesis. Significant variable(s) identified with in-depth statistical analysis of data.
Good	Study based on observations and literary research illustrating various options for dealing with a relevant issue. Appropriate arithmetic, graphical or statistical analysis in relation to some significant variables.
Fair	Study of material collected through compilation of existing data and through personal observations. Display attempts to address a specific issue.
Weak	Study of existing printed material related to the basic issue.

Innovation

Involving the development and evaluation of innovative devices, models or techniques or approaches in fields such as technology, engineering, or computers (both hardware and software).

Strong	Integrate several technologies, inventions or designs and construct an innovative technological system that will have commercial and/or human benefit.
Good	Design and build innovative technology or provide adaptations to existing technology that will have economic applications and/or human benefit.
Fair	Make improvements to, or demonstrate new applications for existing technological systems or equipment and be able to justify them.
Weak	Building models (devices) to duplicate existing technology.

Marking Forms

Forms for 2023 – 4 projects per page / section marks 1 – 4 (poor, fair, good, excellent)

A more general form is available for Specialty Judges.

Specialty Marking Form – All Categories

Written Project Board (Report) Requirements

Scoring of written reports should take into account the following guidelines:

The written summary of the project is intended to present an overview of the project and not be comprehensive.

Must be written by the student
Should not exceed five (5) pages. Reports in excess of this limit may be penalized.
Paper size = 22 × 28 cm size (approx 8.5 × 11 in), double-spaced, 12 pt. font, typewritten on one side only including all graphs, diagrams, etc. Save as a PDF file. Use a simple format including:
COVER PAGE – include Project Title, Student Name(s), School Name.

CONTENTS

CONTENT • TITLE PAGE/ABSTRACT (state the project aims / objectives, summary) (100 words)
WHY: (purpose, hypothesis and background information) (250 words)
HOW: (How you performed your experiment or developed your solution) (300 words)
WHAT: (results and conclusions) (500 words)
SO WHAT: (why your results are important and what they mean) (250 words)
WHAT’S NEXT: (how can you extend your project) (100 words)

The student can include some tables, graphs and data in the project board. Tables and graphs should be with the project and used appropriately on the physical Project Exhibit. Raw data should be in the notes kept for the project.

Specialty Judging

Specialty judging involves the selection of winners for specific awards generously donated by our sponsors. The criteria are often award-specific and may apply over multiple grade divisions. Specialty judges are encouraged to preview project lists before the fair in order to select potential award candidates. Specialty judges may interview students during Round 2 Divisional judging. As well, they will have access to Round 1 Divisional rankings to assist with their project evaluations.