Judging Criteria, Purpose, and Procedures

The Research and Creative Achievement Week (RCAW) is an occasion for the display,

performance, and evaluation of student research and creative activity projects, whether

originating solely from student(s) or carried out collaboratively with faculty.

A successful RCAW will achieve several student-learner objectives:

• Enhance self-concept

• Develop inquiry and problem-solving skills

• Develop creativity

• Improve organizational ability

• Knowledge

• Inquiry skills

• Higher order thinking skills

• Habits of mind

• Integration

• Social skills

Guidelines for Judges

The attitudes and conduct of the judges determine the success of any Research and Creative

Achievement Week (RCAW) activity. Therefore, it is vital that each judge understands

thoroughly his or her duties and obligations. Judges should also have knowledge of all the

questions. For virtual poster sessions, students will include a video overview (less than 3

min) to accompany each poster. Judges are expected to have viewed the poster and the

video before the assigned synchronous discussion session.

• For individual projects, the student will give the oral presentation of the project and then

answer questions about the work on the project.

• For team projects (for which there are multiple presenters), a team spokesperson will

likely be designated to give the oral presentation of the project. All team members should

be able to answer questions pertaining to the project. If not addressed in the presentation,

judges should ask each team member for a brief description of their contributions to the

project, and ask the team to address how they worked together.

learning.

• Judges should try to determine the span of the student’s sustained interest in the field or

discipline, as well as the approximate amount of time spent in developing the project

being evaluated. Some premiums should be granted for considerably extended interest

and effort to encourage the quality of persistence that is demonstrated.

• Judges should not be too harsh in making their assessments, nor should they be rewarding

performance excessively. A balanced evaluation is needed in order not to discourage

students from future participation. Outstanding, superior ratings should only be used

when it is truly warranted.

student since disclosure of scores is delayed until judging is completed.

• Each judge shall score independently of the other judge and must confer with the other

judge afterwards to come up with one winner.

• For those groups with a Super Judge (when there is more than one judging group), in

addition to conferring with the other assigned judge, confer with the Super Judge about

your final winner. For poster sessions, a designated time will be provided.

• We will collect all judging forms and send them to each student for feedback, so written

to the student after the event. Most importantly, comments (positive and negative) are

important so that the student can use the feedback for improvement.

• Judges should evaluate students against CRITERIA, not against other students.

• Judges should consider the student’s class level when completing their evaluations.

• Judges should take into consideration independent vs. collaborative projects with a

mentor. Mentoring of students and professionals alike is common and expected in

the university world of training and education. Although ECU expects all students to

enlist the help of advisors and/or mentors for projects, students must demonstrate

involvement in and contribution to the development and conduct of a project. Judges are

directed to base their ratings on the level of the student’s research involvement and

limited. Judges are directed not to bias their ratings either for or against students with or

without mentors.

• Judges should evaluate theoretical and applied projects without bias toward either.

• Only RCAW officials may inform the student of the scores or ratings after judging.

• Is there evidence of an acquisition of in-depth knowledge through the research and/or

creating the project?

• Does the student show evidence of knowing what the underlying principle(s) is (are)?

• In brief, has the student actually learned content through the study, research and/or

creative activity?

• Check the references (if appropriate) to assist in making a fair determination of the scope

and depth of the literature research. Where appropriate, the quantity and quality of the

references should be considered to evaluate the student’s research methodology.

• Where applicable with some creative activities, has the student created the aesthetic or

artistic experience that the student intended? Has the student achieved something that is

• Where appropriate, is the number of subjects or specimens adequate to generalize to the

larger group that the sample is intended to represent?

• Is the student aware of other approaches or theories relative to this problem or project?

• Is there evidence of both contemporary literature search and fundamental survey of

knowledge with results?

• Has the student been thorough in the methodology?

• Has the student analyzed results in a logical manner and drawn valid conclusions?

• Where applicable with some creative activities, has the student chosen an appropriate

medium for which to express their views and advance audience understanding of a topic?

• Is the use of the medium innovative and specifically appropriate for the topic at hand?

• Each team should appoint a team leader to coordinate the work and act as spokesperson.

However, each member of the team should be able to serve as spokesperson, be fully

involved with the project, and be familiar with all aspects of the project.

• If not addressed in the presentation, the judges should ask each team member for a one or

two sentence description about their contributions to the project.

• Judges should try to weigh evidence of a student’s nervousness. Listen carefully to a

student’s presentation for understanding of basic ideas, principles, and results.

• Has the student expressed themselves well in all written material, such as the abstract and

presentation visuals? Judges might consider asking students about the words or

terminology used in the abstract and presentation to validate that the student clearly

understands their use and that the student carried out the research and/or created the

project. Judges may also ask what specific knowledge or information came from

specific references from the literature.

• Does the student’s presentation make a visual impact and express clarity graphically? In

the case of posters, is the physical display neat and sufficiently definitive to act as a

audience? Was the audience engaged? Did the project excel in communicating meaning,

symbolism, beauty, and even controversy (if appropriate) to observers?

D. Originality and Creativity

• It is true that the approach may not be new to the judge, but is the problem, approach to

the problem, or activity developed in a particularly significant or unique manner?

• Has the student used a new approach to an old subject?

• Has the student provided a unique presentation or organization of materials?

• Does the project show evidence of critical thinking skills? Does the project show

evidence of originality and creativity relative to the standards of the student’s discipline;

whether it is the use of technology, the development of a survey device, the use of an

with previously collected or published data. Has a creative medium been used in an

innovative way?

• Where applicable with some creative activities, did the work communicate a depth of

understanding and perspective on an issue that is unique and not commonly seen or

heard? If the project addresses a well-known idea, did the student bring something new

Superior 36, Excellent 24, Good 12, Satisfactory 4

For a superior rating, an individual or team student shall receive a minimum of 36 points based

on the criteria of (1) knowledge achieved, (2) effective use of methods and/or media (including

teamwork), (3) clarity of expression and response to questions, and (4) originality and creativity.

JUDGING CRITERIA for ORAL and POSTER SESSIONS RATINGS

Show entries

Search:

Criteria

SUPERIOR

EXCELLENT

GOOD

SATISFACTORY