Judges Instructions*

Presentations for Round 2 of the symposium you will occur via ZOOM on Sunday, February 6, 2022. Prior to the presentations, you will receive a Program and Proceedings list and the semifinalists abstracts that you will be judging. The symposium schedule includes a maximum fifteen-minute student presentation and a 5-minute Q&A followed by a three-minute break between presentations. This will give you time to write additional notes about a student’s presentation and to evaluate their abstract. The Chair Judges will moderate the group sessions.

Before Rounds 2 and 3 of the Symposium, you will receive the following:

• A copy of the Symposium schedule
• The abstracts and articles submitted by the semifinalists
• Instructions about how to complete the Judge’s Scoring Sheets (1/presenter)

Notification if you are a Session Chairperson (appointed by the Symposium organizing committee).

The following materials will be available for the chair of each session.

• A final list of judges in your session;
• Research papers for the semifinalists in your group

Comments Regarding Determination Of Place Winners:

(1st-8th place amongst the finalists)

Place winners are ultimately determined by a decision of you, as a group. The scoring sheets are to help you in that decision-making process, as well as to give feedback to students about their presentations. Scoring sheets are also used by most teachers as one part of a student’s grade for their project.

Score all presenters on the scoring sheets provided electronically and upload them for each presenter.

To ensure anonymity, judges names should not be included on the score sheet.

Do not feel bound by the score sheet. Some projects are not well suited to the ‘scientific method’ as outlined on the score sheet. For example, there are mathematical proofs, some engineering projects, or Carl Tape’s mirage project that won at the national symposium in 1997, all of which are given ‘special scoring attention’, as they did not fit the norm. In such cases, feel free to make comments in lieu of scoring each category, but please do include a total score (out of 50) that reflects the overall quality of the project.

NOTE about Multi-year Projects: If a student has continued a research project that was previously presented at the ASHSSS, their paper and presentation must focus on the current year’s work. Data and results from previous related research may be included, but the year(s) during which data were collected must be clearly indicated. Continuing research must document a significant expansion of the experiment.

NOTE about IRB/SRC approval: Students are required to submit paperwork showing IRB approval if their project involves human subjects (and school district approval if the subjects are students), and SRC approval if their project involves non-human vertebrate animals or potentially hazardous materials. You can assume these forms are completed even if the student makes no mention of this during their presentation.

Symposium Format and Schedule 

During Presentations:
1. For the semi-final round, the SESSION MODERATOR will welcome all students presenting on ZOOM and congratulate them for making it to the finals. Students and judges will then be sent to break out rooms for their individual group sessions. The "welcome room" will be available throughout the day. For the final round, students and judges will convene in a room to be designated and then sent to their assigned rooms for the presentations.
2. Before each student presents, MODERATOR will ask if that student wishes to submit a revised abstract and/or paper at the beginning of each of the four sections. Revised abstracts/papers will not be accepted after the student’s presentation.
3. Schedule changes and special speaker needs should be noted/addressed and any necessary changes made at the beginning of the session.
4. Students should present in the order of the program unless there has been a planned/announced program change. IF a student is not prepared to present at their scheduled time, they should be eliminated from the program unless there are extenuating circumstances. The director will be available to help make any decisions regarding students who are not present.
5. The Chair Judge will introduce each presenter and read their project title.
6. Each presenter has a maximum of 15 minutes for delivery of the presentation and a maximum of 5 minutes for questions (even if their presentation is less than 15 minutes).
For the virtual presentations in the semi-final round a judge for that group will be assigned to monitor the time; For the in-person final round, an assigned timekeeper will have “warning” cards to hold up at key moments
(3 minutes, 1 minute, and STOP), and will verbally say, “STOP”, when the time is up (at 15 minutes for the presentation and at 5 minutes for the questions).
It is important to follow these time limits strictly, in order to be consistent even if that means interrupting a presenter or judge.
IF there are equipment problems that are outside the student’s control and which require lengthy time to fix, the Chair Judge will decide that time should be “paused” until the problem is resolved. (This would be appropriate if ZOOM stops working, for example, but NOT if a student is having problem with a PowerPoint presentation or is not ready.)
Judges may adjust the starting times slightly as needed to allow time to mark scoring forms and read abstracts.
7. The Chair Judge will direct questions from the "floor" after each student presentation, whether virtual or in-person. Remember, these are "beginning" scientists; your questions should provide encouragement as well as constructive criticisms directed at suggestions for improvement.
8. Conversations with student presenters during breaks are appropriate, but should be such that they could not be construed as continued judging. (Perhaps giving comments/advice, instead of asking for more information. If a more lengthy conversation is desired, it might be more appropriate to invite the student to contact you at a later date.)
9. Breaks are indicated on the schedule.
10. On the day of the final round, lunch will be provided.

After Presentations:
11. Once all presentations have been completed, the panel of judges may choose to retire to decide upon the overall winners. REFRAIN from awarding ties.

We would also like you to rank the remaining presentations in order. These rankings will not be announced publicly, but will allow us to select additional alternates for nationals, if the need arises.

Once the decisions are made, each judge should make sure all scoring sheets are complete, with each item scored, a total score indicated, and any desired comments included. For the 1st place winner (and the 2nd place alternate), suggestions for the student’s next presentation at national symposium would be welcomed. ALL DECISIONS BY THE JUDGING PANEL ARE FINAL!

The NYC Symposium will award:

1st earns a $2,000 scholarship (to a school of their choice) and presents their paper at the National symposium, where they compete for additional awards.

2nd earns a $1,500 scholarship (to a school of their choice) and presents their paper at the National symposium, where they compete for additional awards, and is the 1st place ALTERNATE speaker for the National symposium.

3rd earns a $1,000 scholarship (to a school of their choice), and is the alternate 2nd place speaker for the National symposium AND will compete in the National JSHS Poster Session.

1st -5th attend an all-expenses-paid trip to the National symposium (6th & 7th are automatic alternates).

1st -8th earn one-year (two semester) full tuition scholarships to UAF.

We will also ask you to rank order the remaining finalists, in case we need more alternates for nationals.

3281076a1bd0">Results (Rank all 16 finalists; there is no real distinction between 4th -8th places, other than locked in ‘all-expense-paid’ national travel.)