Home
 Previous Years
 Resources
 Symposium
 About CSSF
 Endorsements
 Specifications
 Corporate Structure
 Documents
 Site Map

  Quick Links ------------ Student Area ------------ Scholarship App. Research Grants Mentor Programs Links IJAS Guidebook Safety Guidelines Endorsements Rules and Regulations Approved Organisms Checklists and Forms Project Planning ------------ Teacher Area ------------ IJAS Guidebook Organizational H.book Informational H.book Forms/PDFs Links ------------ Judge Area ------------ IJAS Guidebook Organizational H.book Informational H.book Judging Information Become a Judge Forms/PDFs Links ------------ Main Area ------------ Home Current Year Previous Years Symposium About CSSF Rules/Endorsements Specifications Corporate Structure Documents Site Map

[Student Area|Teacher Area|Judge Area]

Schedule for ISEF Judges

Please arrive at Illinois Tech by 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 19, 2022. Specific instructions on the exact location are included in the letter of introduction mailed with this handbook. Proceed to the stage of the auditorium. An area on the stage will be draped off for exclusive use by ISEF judges. Coats can be placed in the backstage dressing room.

Copies of the Research Summaries from the top 35 outstanding high school exhibit projects will be made available from the ISEF Chairperson.

If you find that you cannot be present on the morning of Saturday, March 21, 2020, please inform us by telephoning 773-753-1397, the direct line to the Science Fair judging headquarters. This number will be available beginning Tuesday, March 15, 2022.

[back to top]

7:30 a.m.	Chairperson and committee members report to the stage of the auditorium.
8:00 a.m.	ISEF judges report to the stage of the auditorium. Coffee and rolls will be available behind the draped-off area.
8:15 a.m.- 11:30 a.m.	Judging of the top High School Exhibit Projects
12:00 noon	Luncheon -TBD ISEF judges are invited to attend the Sixth Grade Recognition Luncheon.

[back to top]

Scoring for Exhibit Judges

The judging and selection of the students who will represent the Chicago Public Schools are important aspects of our involvement in scientific education in the nation. At this level of competition, our students can be compared with students throughout the nation. It is imperative that the most deserving exhibits are selected. Please keep this in mind as you make your decisions.

From the top 35 high school exhibits, four ISEF finalists and two alternates will be selected. The four finalists will receive an all-expense-paid trip to represent the Chicago Public Schools at the 66th International Science and Engineering Fair.

Representing the Chicago Public Schools at the international level is the highest recognition an exhibitor can earn. Finalists have an opportunity to win over 250 prizes and awards for their outstanding scientific research.

Points for Scoring

I.	Creative Ability	30 Points
II.	Scientific Thought/ Engineering Goals	30 Points
III.	Thoroughness	15 Points
IV.	Skill and Individual Work	15 Points
V.	Clarity of Presentation	10 Points
Total Possible Points		100 Points

[back to top]

Criteria for ISEF Judges

I. Evidence of Creative Ability (30 points)

1. Does the student show creative ability and originality in:
   - the questions asked
   - the approach to solving the problem
   - the analysis and interpretation of the data
   - the use of equipment
   - the construction or design of new equipment
2. Does creative research support an investigation and help answer a question in an original way? (The assembly of a kit would not be creative unless an unusual approach was taken. Collections should not be considered creative unless they are used to support an investigation and to help answer a question in an original way.)
3. Does the student's creative contribution promote an efficient and reliable way to solve a problem? (In judging, it is important to distinguish between gadgeteering and genuine creativity.)

II. Evidence of Scientific Thought/Engineering Goals
(30 points)
A. Scientific Thought

1. Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously?
2. Was the problem sufficiently limited to allow plausible attack?
   (Good scientists can identify important problems capable of solutions. Neither working on a difficult problem without getting anywhere nor solving an extremely simple problem is a substantial contribution.)
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 student recognize their need and were they correctly used?
6. Is there adequate data to support conclusions?
7. Does the student recognize the data's limitations?
8. Does the student understand the project's ties to related research?
9. Does the student have an idea of what further research is warranted?
10. Did the student cite scientific literature or only popular literature?

B. Engineering Goals

1. Does the project have a clear objective?
2. Is the objective relevant to the potential user's needs?
3. Is the solution workable? (Unworkable solutions seem interesting but are not practical.)
4. Is the solution acceptable to the potential user? (Solutions that will be rejected or ignored are not valuable.)
5. Is the solution economically feasible? (A solution so expensive that it cannot be used is not valuable.)
6. Could the solution be utilized successfully in the design or the construction of some product?
7. Is the solution a significant improvement over previous alternatives?
8. Has the solution been tested for performance under the conditions of use? (Testing might prove difficult but should be considered.)

[back to top]

II. Evidence of Thoroughness (15 points)

1. Was the purpose carried out to completion within the scope of the original intent?
2. Was the project researched completely?
3. Are the conclusions based on a single experiment or replication?
4. How complete are the project notes?
5. Is the student aware of other approaches or theories?
6. How much time did the student spend on the project?
7. Is the student familiar with scientific literature in the studied field?

IV. Evidence of Skill and Individual Work (15 points)

1. Does the student have the required laboratory, computation, observational, and design skills to obtain supporting data?
2. Where was the project done (home, school laboratory, university laboratory, or at another location)?
3. Did the student receive assistance from parents, teachers, scientists, or engineers?
4. Was the project done under adult supervision, or did the student work largely alone?
5. Where did the equipment come from? Was it built independently by the student? Was it obtained on loan? Was it part of a laboratory where the student worked?
6. Did the student do all the exhibit work, or did someone help?

V. Evidence of Validity and Clarity of Presentation (10 points)

1. How clearly can the student discuss the project and explain the project's purpose, procedure, and conclusions? (Make allowances for nervousness; watch out for memorized speeches that reflect little understanding of principles.)
2. Does the written material reflect the student's understanding of the research? (Take outside help into account.)
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 itself?
7. Was the presentation done in a forthright manner, without cute tricks or gadgets?