SayPro Judging Criteria Template.

The SayPro Judging Criteria Template is a structured document used by judges to fairly and consistently evaluate participants’ submissions in the science and technology competitions. This template ensures that all judging aspects align with the competition’s goals and objectives, providing clear guidelines for the evaluation process. It includes a rubric that breaks down key elements of the competition, such as innovation, technical excellence, creativity, and presentation quality.

---

1. Overview of the Judging Criteria

The judging criteria template is organized into several categories that assess both the technical and presentation aspects of each submission. The template includes specific aspects of the projects that judges should evaluate, each of which is accompanied by a scoring system that helps judges quantify their assessments.

• Project Innovation and Creativity (25%): Judges assess how original and innovative the participant’s idea or project is. A high score is awarded to projects that introduce novel concepts or solve problems in new ways.
• Technical Merit and Execution (30%): This category evaluates the technical rigor and accuracy of the project. It includes considerations of the complexity of the science or technology used and the technical execution, including design, functionality, and accuracy.
• Presentation and Communication (20%): Judges assess how well the participant communicates their project, including the clarity of their explanation, the quality of their visual aids (such as slides or prototypes), and their ability to engage the audience or judges.
• Impact and Feasibility (15%): Judges evaluate the potential impact of the project and its feasibility. Does the project have real-world applications, and is it something that could realistically be implemented or scaled? This category also considers sustainability and ethical implications.
• Adherence to Competition Guidelines (10%): Judges consider whether the participant followed the competition guidelines, including adherence to the theme, format, and rules for submission. A project that doesn’t comply with the basic guidelines will score lower in this area.

Each category is scored using a scale (e.g., 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest) and carries a specific weight based on its importance to the competition’s objectives.

---

2. Detailed Rubric for Each Category

Project Innovation and Creativity (25%)

Score	Criteria	Description
5	Highly innovative	The project introduces a completely new approach or concept with significant originality.
4	Innovative	The project demonstrates a novel approach but may have some resemblance to existing concepts.
3	Moderately innovative	The project presents a fairly standard concept with some elements of novelty.
2	Minimal innovation	The project lacks originality or uses well-established ideas with little innovation.
1	No innovation	The project is not innovative, offering no new ideas or concepts.

Technical Merit and Execution (30%)

Score	Criteria	Description
5	Excellent technical execution	The project is technically flawless, with strong attention to detail and high functionality.
4	Strong technical execution	The project is well-executed, with only minor flaws in design or implementation.
3	Acceptable technical execution	The project is functional but contains several issues with technical aspects.
2	Weak technical execution	The project shows significant flaws in design or execution that hinder functionality.
1	Poor technical execution	The project is technically deficient and fails to meet basic standards of execution.

Presentation and Communication (20%)

Score	Criteria	Description
5	Excellent presentation	The participant communicates the project exceptionally well, with clarity and confidence, using engaging visual aids.
4	Strong presentation	The participant presents the project clearly, though may lack some polish or confidence in delivery.
3	Adequate presentation	The participant communicates the project but struggles with clarity or organization.
2	Poor presentation	The participant has difficulty communicating the project, and the explanation is unclear or disorganized.
1	Inadequate presentation	The participant’s presentation is unclear, poorly organized, and difficult to follow.

Impact and Feasibility (15%)

Score	Criteria	Description
5	High impact and feasibility	The project has significant potential impact with clear real-world applications and is feasible to implement.
4	Strong impact and feasibility	The project has a good potential impact and is likely feasible, with a clear implementation path.
3	Moderate impact and feasibility	The project has some potential impact but faces obstacles to feasibility or lacks clear applications.
2	Minimal impact and feasibility	The project has limited impact and faces significant feasibility challenges.
1	No impact or feasibility	The project has little to no potential for real-world impact, and its feasibility is doubtful.

Adherence to Competition Guidelines (10%)

Score	Criteria	Description
5	Fully adheres to guidelines	The project follows all competition rules and guidelines perfectly, including theme, format, and submission requirements.
4	Mostly adheres to guidelines	The project follows most guidelines but may have minor deviations.
3	Adequately adheres to guidelines	The project follows some of the guidelines but has notable deviations from the specified rules.
2	Poor adherence to guidelines	The project misses several key guidelines, and there are significant deviations from the competition rules.
1	Violates guidelines	The project does not follow the competition rules or completely disregards the guidelines.

---

3. Final Scoring & Comments Section

After evaluating each submission based on the categories and rubric above, judges will assign scores for each section. The total score will be calculated by adding the weighted scores for each category.

• Total Score Calculation:
  Total Score=(Innovation and Creativity Score×0.25)+(Technical Merit and Execution Score×0.30)+(Presentation and Communication Score×0.20)+(Impact and Feasibility Score×0.15)+(Adherence to Guidelines Score×0.10)\text{Total Score} = (\text{Innovation and Creativity Score} \times 0.25) + (\text{Technical Merit and Execution Score} \times 0.30) + (\text{Presentation and Communication Score} \times 0.20) + (\text{Impact and Feasibility Score} \times 0.15) + (\text{Adherence to Guidelines Score} \times 0.10)

Judges are encouraged to provide constructive feedback in the comments section to support the scoring process. Feedback should be focused on the strengths of the project and areas for improvement.

Comments Section:

• Strengths: (What did the participant do well?)
• Areas for Improvement: (What can the participant improve in future competitions?)
• Additional Comments: (Any other observations or suggestions?)

---

4. Example of the Judging Criteria Template

Competition Name: SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competition
Participant Name: [Participant Name]
Project Title: [Project Title]

Criteria	Score (1-5)	Comments
Project Innovation and Creativity	[ ]	[Comments on innovation]
Technical Merit and Execution	[ ]	[Comments on technical execution]
Presentation and Communication	[ ]	[Comments on presentation]
Impact and Feasibility	[ ]	[Comments on impact and feasibility]
Adherence to Competition Guidelines	[ ]	[Comments on guideline adherence]
Total Score	[ ]	[Total score calculation]

---

5. Conclusion

The SayPro Judging Criteria Template provides a comprehensive, structured approach to evaluating submissions in science and technology competitions. By using this template, judges ensure that their evaluations are fair, consistent, and aligned with the competition’s goals. It also helps participants understand what is expected of them and how they can improve their projects for future events. By clearly defining and standardizing the evaluation process, SayPro can maintain the integrity of the competition while encouraging participants to push the boundaries of innovation and creativity.