JUDGES SCORING SCALE DESCRIPTIONS THE JUDGES’ RATING SCALE IS

MILITARY JUDGES’ ERRATA SHEET UNITED STATES V
11 JUDGES AND HUMAN RIGHTS ADDRESS BY JUSTICE CHRIS
12 THE ASSOCIATION OF JUDGES OF IRELAND CONSTITUTION (A)

2013 JUDGES OPEN USA INVITATIONAL LEVEL 35 H OSTED
2018 ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT HORTICULTURE JUDGES SEMINAR SATURDAY AUGUST
51365 GLOBAL JUDGES FORUM 2004 RIO DE JANEIRO JUNE

Judges Scoring Scale Descriptions

Judges Scoring Scale Descriptions


The Judges’ Rating Scale is from 5 to 1:

5 - Exceptional 4 - Above average 3 – Average 2 – Below average 1 – Not included in project


Below is a guideline to explain each judging category.

Information and Knowledge Gain: Is the information collected is valid and appropriate for the grade level?

Has student acquired knowledge doing this project?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Has learned little or no additional knowledge

Presents some existing knowledge on the subject and has learned enough additional knowledge

Justifies the reason for carrying out the experiment, has learned many aspects of this subject and can apply this information elsewhere in their studies.

Scientific approach: Was a scientific approach used with controlled variables?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Explains methods and materials used , identifies variables, used a testable idea.

Clearly explains methods materials and equipment used. Control, independent and dependent variables are identified. Has an original and testable idea.

Used adequate sample size. Control, independent and dependent variables are identified. Idea has an unknown answer and could not be researched.

Collection of Data: Were measurements accurately taken?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Simply provide numbers and loose data.

Summarizes all data without interpreting it. All figures are labeled and have descriptive titles.

Provides graphs and diagrams of the experiment including photos. Summarizes all data without interpreting it. All figures are labeled and have descriptive titles.

Conclusions: Were stated and logical?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Simply restates the results

Interprets the results

Hypothesis is reintroduced . A statement of support or rejection is present.

Written work: Was the journal organized and complete?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

No journal included

Journal was incomplete and not organized

Written journal presented and complete.

Oral presentation: Was well planned and interesting?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Inadequately communicates project process and conclusions

Adequately communicates project process and conclusions

Fully understands subject matter, can discuss conclusions clearly and used subject matter in other studies.

Exhibit: Was it visually appealing, neat attractive?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Information was not organized with inadequate information included

Information was neatly organized with basic information included

Information was dynamically displayed using graphic art, photos and is eye catching.


Creativity and Originality: Does the project show a creative approach in thought design or presentation?

Scale 1-2

Scale 3

Scale 4-5

Little creativity demonstrated

Enough creativity and originality demonstrated

Project was original and work was creative.




9 MARCH 2012 INTERNATIONAL HAGUE NETWORK OF JUDGES ARGENTINA
D RESSAGE JUDGES TRAVEL SUBSIDY & HONORARIUM CLAIM FORM
DUTIES OF LINE JUDGES 1 CAREFULLY REVIEW THE LINE


Tags: scale descriptions, 3 scale, scale, scoring, descriptions, judges’, rating, judges