If you would like to be a judge for 2008 SLVSEF, please click HERE to sign up for additional information!

SLVSEF will NEVER give your contact information to outside parties and will only send

emails with additional information about the 2008 Salt Lake Valley Science and Engineering Fair.

Please check back on March 6th for the 2008 PowerPoint training materials.

2008 Judge Training PowerPoint PDF

2008 Judge Score Sheet

2008 Judge Rubric

2008 Project Numbering Format

2008 Special Awards Score Sheet

We welcome you as a judge to the annual Salt Lake Valley Science and Engineering Fair, which will be held at the Rice-Eccels Stadium Towers, on March 27th and 28th, 2008. One of the most valuable experiences for young scientists is the opportunity to discuss their findings with established members of the scientific and engineering communities. SLVSEF participants take great pride in their work; judging interviews greatly contribute to the overall educational experience of the competition. Each year professionals, representing university faculty, industrial scientists and engineers, representatives of private and federal research centers and agencies, and medical researchers, and community members volunteer their time to interview and award promising young students that participate in SLVSEF.

Please do not register if you do not intend to make it to the Fair. If you register we will assign you projects to Judge. If you do register and you cannot make it, we will expect you to find a replacement.

• Judges need to arrive at the University of Utah's Rice-Eccles Stadium Tower between 8:30 and 8:45 AM on March 28th. Please be on time! Judges will receive an email reminding them of the Fair one week prior to the fair. Two judge preview sessions will be offered to allow judges to see the projects they will be judging without the students present. Judges are strongly encouraged to attend one, if not both, of the judge preview sessions on March 27th from 7:00-10:00 p.m. or March 28th from 7:00-8:45 a.m.
• These will be the guidelines used by the fair to judge the projects for the purposes of awarding the grand award and category winners. These guidelines will not necessarily be used by the sponsors to award the special awards.

SLVSEF offers the following tips and criteria as suggested aids as you review and score the projects.

1. Examine the quality of the work, and how well he/she understands the project and area of study. The physical display is secondary to the student’s knowledge of the subject. Look for evidence of laboratory, field or theoretical work, not just library research or gadgeteering.
2. Judges should keep in mind that competing in a science fair is not only a competition, but an educational and motivating experience for the students. The high point of the fair experience for most of the students is their judging interviews.
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 unduly impact the judging of this year’s project.
4. 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 for completing a challenging task and/or for success in previous competitions.
5. Compare projects only with those competing at this fair and not with projects seen in other competitions or scholastic events.
6. It is important in the evaluation of a project to determine how much guidance was provided to the student in the design and implementation of his or her research. When research is conducted in an industrial or institutional setting, the student should have documentation, most often the 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.
7. Please be discreet when discussing winners or making critical comments in elevators, restaurants, or elsewhere, as students or adult escorts might overhear. Results are confidential until announced at the awards ceremony.

Evaluation Criteria for Category Judging

I. Creative Ability (Individual - 30, Team - 25)

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, Team - 25)
If an engineering project, 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. Did the student recognize the need for controls and were they correctly used?
6. Are there adequate data to support the conclusions?
7. Does the finalist or team recognize the data’s limitations?
8. Does the finalist/team understand the project’s ties to related research?
9. Does the finalist/team have an idea of what further research is warranted?
10. Did the finalist/team cite scientific literature, or only popular literature (i.e., local newspapers, Reader’s Digest).

II b. Engineering Goals (Individual - 30, Team -25)

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, Team - 12)

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 on replicate experiments?
4. How complete are the project notes?
5. Is the finalist/team aware of other approaches or theories?
6. How much time did the finalist or team spend on the project?
7. Is the finalist/team familiar with scientific or engineering literature in the field?

IV. Skill (Individual - 15, Team - 12)

1. Does the finalist/team have the required laboratory, computation, observational and design skills to obtain supporting data?
2. Where was the project performed? (i.e., home, school laboratory) Did the student or team receive assistance from parents, teachers, scientists or engineers?
3. Was the project completed under adult supervision, or did the student/team work largely alone?
4. Where did the equipment come from? Was it built independently by the finalist or team? Was it obtained on loan? Was it part of a laboratory?
5. Clarity (Individual - 10, Team - 10)
   • How clearly does the finalist discuss his/her project and explain the purpose, procedure, and conclusions?
   • Does the written material reflect the finalist’s or team’s understanding of the research?
   • Are the important phases of the project presented in an orderly manner?
   • How clearly is the data presented?
   • How clearly are the results presented?
   • How well does the project display explain the project?
   • Was the presentation done in a forthright manner, without tricks or gadgets?
   • Did the finalist/team perform all the project work, or did someone help?

VI. Teamwork (Team Projects only- 16)

1. Are the tasks and contributions of each team member clearly outlined?
2. Was each team member fully involved with the project, and is each member familiar with all aspects?
3. Does the final work reflect the coordinated efforts of all team members?

Judging Tips for Special Award Judges

1. Finalists may have worked on a research project for more than one year. However, for the purpose of judging, ONLY research conducted since the last SLVSEF is to be evaluated. Although previous work is important, it is not to be considered as part of this year's SLVSEF project.
2. 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.
3. When research is conducted in an industrial or institutional setting, the finalist is required to include Intel ISEF Form 1C with the project documentation. Judges should review in detail supervisor's comments on Intel ISEF Form 1C when evaluating research conducted in an industrial or institutional setting.
4. Look for evidence of laboratory, field or theoretical work, not just library research or gadgeteering.
5. Compare projects only with those competing at the SLVSEF and not with projects seen in other competitions or scholastic events.
6. Judges should keep in mind that the SLVSEF and the Intel ISEF is not only a competition, but an educational and motivating experience for the finalists. The high point of the fair experience for most of the finalists is their judging interviews.
7. When submitting the score for each finalist's project, you must enter only the cumulative score on the scan card for that finalist as discussed in the preceding section.
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. Please be discreet when discussing winners or making critical comments in elevators, restaurants, or elsewhere, as finalists or adult escorts might overhear. Results are confidential until announced at the awards sessions. The SLVSEF Committee and the individual judges for all of the awards presented are responsible for ensuring that all items associated with judging, with the exception of the official results certification, are collected and destroyed at the conclusion of judging.

SLVSEF 2008 will begin on March 28th, 2008.

Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 3:00 PM to 10:00 PM
3:00-7:00 pm	Student Registration, Check In and Table Assignments, Display Setup
7:00-10:00	Judges Registration and Priview
Friday, March 28, 2008 - 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM
8:00 am	Judges Registration and Preview, Activities for Students
9:00-11:30	Project Judging and Evaluation (Students must remain with their projects during judging period)
11:30-1:00	Student lunch and activities
1:00-4:00	Public Display of Projects and Discussions with Students (Students are encouraged, but not required, to stay with their projects during the public display.)
4:00-5:30	Removal of Exhibits
7:00 pm	Awards Ceremony @ Rice Eccles Stadium

To be a judge at the 2008 SLVSEF, you are strongly encouraged to attend a judge training course. If you have attended a judge training in the past or if you have judged at SLVSEF, you do not need to attend another training course, however, it would be beneficial.

Four courses will be offered again this year: two in Provo and two in Salt Lake City. The dates of the training courses will be posted in January 2008. Please check back.

Please send an email to Jody Ostrander by clicking on this link and let her know which session you would like to sign up for.