SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competitions: Judging Evaluation Form.

This Judging Evaluation Form is designed to guide the panel of judges in fairly and consistently evaluating participants’ projects in the SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competitions. The form is divided into sections that assess the key components of each project, including innovation, execution, impact, and overall presentation. Judges are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback to help participants improve their work.

---

1. General Information

• Participant Name: _______________________________
• Project Title: _______________________________
• Competition Category: _______________________________
• Judge’s Name: _______________________________
• Date of Evaluation: _______________________________

---

2. Evaluation Criteria

Each section of the evaluation should be rated on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being poor, 10 being excellent). Judges should consider the overall quality of the work in relation to the competition’s theme and objectives.

a) Innovation and Originality (1-10)

• Description: Assess the originality of the project, including its novelty and creative approach to solving a problem or advancing knowledge in science and technology.
  • Key questions to consider:
    • Does the project present a unique solution or idea?
    • Does it push the boundaries of current knowledge or technology?
    • Is the concept creative and innovative?

Score: _____ / 10

• Feedback:

b) Scientific/Technical Execution (1-10)

• Description: Evaluate the technical complexity and execution of the project. This includes the accuracy of data, soundness of methodology, and the use of scientific or technological principles.
  • Key questions to consider:
    • How well is the project executed from a technical standpoint?
    • Are the scientific/technical principles sound and applied appropriately?
    • Were there any challenges in execution, and how were they overcome?

Score: _____ / 10

• Feedback:

c) Impact and Relevance (1-10)

• Description: Assess the potential impact of the project, focusing on how it addresses a relevant problem or advances understanding in its field.
  • Key questions to consider:
    • Does the project have real-world applications or potential for societal impact?
    • How relevant is the project to current scientific/technological challenges?
    • Can the project be scaled or applied beyond the competition setting?

Score: _____ / 10

• Feedback:

d) Presentation and Communication (1-10)

• Description: Evaluate the quality and clarity of the participant’s presentation, including their ability to explain the project effectively and engage the audience.
  • Key questions to consider:
    • Was the project well-organized and clearly communicated?
    • Did the participant effectively convey the scientific/technical aspects of the project?
    • Was the presentation engaging and professional?

Score: _____ / 10

• Feedback:

e) Problem Solving and Critical Thinking (1-10)

• Description: Evaluate the participant’s ability to think critically and solve problems, particularly in challenging or unexpected situations.
  • Key questions to consider:
    • How well did the participant address problems during the development of the project?
    • Did they demonstrate critical thinking and problem-solving skills?
    • Did they make adjustments or refinements based on challenges encountered?

Score: _____ / 10

• Feedback:

f) Overall Project Quality (1-10)

• Description: This section evaluates the overall quality of the project, considering all factors such as design, execution, presentation, and innovation.
  • Key questions to consider:
    • How well does the project perform overall?
    • Are there any notable strengths or weaknesses that stand out?
    • Would you consider the project to be of high quality and well-rounded?

Score: _____ / 10

• Feedback:

---

3. Final Evaluation

• Strengths:
  (List key strengths and areas where the project excelled.)
• Areas for Improvement:
  (Provide constructive feedback for improvement. This could include areas for further research, improvements in methodology, or suggestions for enhancing the project’s impact.)
• Judge’s Overall Impressions and Final Comments:
  (Summarize your thoughts on the project as a whole.)

---

4. Final Rating

Based on the criteria above, assign a final rating (out of 50) for the overall quality of the project. This score will be used to determine the participant’s final placement.

Total Score: _____ / 50

---

5. Recommendations

• Recommended for Final Round (Yes/No):
  (Indicate if this participant should move on to the final round of evaluation.)
  _____ Yes
  _____ No
• Award Recommendation (Optional):
  (If applicable, provide your recommendation for an award or special recognition.)

---

6. Signature

• Judge’s Signature: ___________________________
• Date: ___________________________

---

Conclusion:

This SayPro Judging Evaluation Form serves as a detailed guide for evaluating participants’ projects in the SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competitions. By focusing on key criteria such as innovation, scientific execution, impact, presentation, and problem-solving, the form ensures that all projects are evaluated consistently and fairly. Additionally, the feedback sections provide valuable insights to help participants improve and refine their projects in future competitions.