Score Sheet to Assess Written Communication in Write-Ups And Posters in KSEF 2019
THE KENYA SCIENCE AND ENGINERING FAIR (KSEF)-SCORE SHEET (SESSION ONE)
| Judge’s Name & Signature |
|
| Part A | ……………/30 |
Name of learner(s):
1…………………………………………..
2………………………………………….
Title of project …………………………Reg. No …………
Category ……………………………………………………………..
School…………………….………… Region ……………
PART A: WRITTEN COMMUNICATION (WRITE UP AND POSTERS)
(Level of performance: 0=Not done, not present, 0.5=Poor, very weak, 1.0=Satisfactory, 1.5=Good, 2.0=Extensive, well done)
NO |
Criteria ( more extensive in report than on the poster / charts) |
Maximum Score |
Score |
1 |
Write up neatly and logically organized W rite with clearly labeled sections eg. Abstract, and plagiarism pledge etc |
2 |
|
2 |
Evidence of background research in write up (max 1mk) Background information and knowledge, summarized in write up with articles in appendix Introduction in write up (max 1mk) Including focus question / problem statement and supporting evidence |
2
|
|
3 |
Written language in write up and on poster Legible, correct fonts, scientific, suitable headings, no spelling mistakes |
2 |
|
4 |
Aim / hypothesis/ objectives of project reflected in write up and on poster |
2 |
|
5 |
Methods (and materials) used or technologies used in write up and on poster Presented in logical order , correct expression, more extensive in report than on poster |
2 |
|
6 |
Variables identified in write up and on poster Dependent and independent variable |
2 |
|
7 |
Results in write up and on posters Full observations, presented in a tabular form and in graphs in write up. Summary in graph or diagram form on poster. The results should be scientifically and mathematically suitable and correct. |
2 |
|
8 |
Analysis of results in write up and on poster Report/findings/graphs explained in words, more extensive in write up than on poster |
2 |
|
9 |
Discussion of results in write up and on poster Pattern and trends are noted and explained, anomalies/unusual results are discussed , limitations noted and clarified |
2 |
|
10 |
Future possibilities of research in write up / recommendations Future extensions and possibilities are identified |
2 |
|
11 |
Conclusions are reflected in write up and on posters They are valid, based on findings and linked to objectives. |
2 |
|
12 |
Reference in write up Reference of books, magazines and internet addresses given in the correct format |
2 |
|
13 |
Acknowledgements in write up and on poster It is important to find out depth of audit assistance received and how this assistance has been used |
2 |
|
14 |
Display board – summaries project and is neatly organized This must include correct size of the board and logical flow of presentation |
2 |
|
15 |
Project data file Research plan/Rough work/original data sheets/plans/diagrams/photos/questionnaire/previous models/emails/etc. Showing what was done and when, where and how observations, circumstances ,results ets |
2 |
|
TOTAL |
30 |
THE KENYA SCIENCE AND ENGINERING FAIR (KSEF)-SCORE SHEET (SESSION TWO)
| Part B ………. / 15 | Part C ………. / 30 |
| Judge’s Name Signature | |
Name of learner(s):1…………………………………………
2………………………………………….
Title of project ………………………………………………. Reg. No ………………………………….
Category …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
School…………………………………………………………… Region …………………………………
PART B: ORAL COMMUNICATION (INTERACTION)
(Level of performance for No’s 1-5: 0=Not done, 0.5=Good, 1.0=Excellent)
(Level of performance for No’s 6-10: 0=Not done, not present, 0.5=Poor, very weak, 1.0=Satisfactory, 1.5=Good, 2.0=Extensive, well done)
S/NO |
Criteria |
Maximum Score |
Score |
1 |
Capture of interest The learners presentation is exciting and stimulating |
1 |
|
2 |
Enthusiasm / effort A worthwhile effort was made to explain, lots of enthusiasm |
1 |
|
3 |
Voice / tone Totally audible, varying intonation |
1 |
|
4 |
Self-confidence Ease of presentation |
1 |
|
5 |
Scientific Language Use of appropriate language and vocabulary |
1 |
|
6 |
Response to questions Carefully listens to questions, responds clearly and intelligently |
2 |
|
7 |
Presentation of project Can present the project in a logical, well organized way (without reciting/ reading directly) |
2 |
|
8 |
Limitations / weaknesses and gaps The learner is fully aware of limitations and can explain reasons for gaps |
2 |
|
9 |
Possible suggestions or expanding project / recommendation The learner is fully aware of possibilities for expanding the project |
2 |
|
10 |
Authenticity The learner takes complete ownership of the project and integrates assistance received in their answers to questions. Can demonstrate all of the methods / techniques used. It is important to find out the amount of assistance received and how this assistance has been used ask questions |
2 |
|
TOTAL |
15 |
[nextpage title=”Score Sheet for Scientific Thought, Method and Creativity Assessment in KSEF 2019″]
PART C: SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, METHOD AND CREATIVITY.
(Level of performance for No’s 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9(I & ii), 10, 12 and 13: 0=Not done, 0.5=Poor, 1.0 =Satisfactory, 1.5 = Good and 2.0 = Extensive, well done)
(Level of performance for 3,4,6,9 (iii) and 11: 0=Not done/copycats, 1.0=satisfactory, 2.0 =Good, 3.0 = Excellent).
|
S/NO |
Criteria | Maximum Score | Score |
|
1 |
Statement of the problem: Clear statement of the problem and objectives |
2 |
|
|
2 |
Introduction / Background information: Relationship between the project and other research done in the same area |
2 |
|
|
3 |
Application of scientific concepts to every day life |
3 |
|
|
4 |
Subject mastery: Demonstration of deeply and accurate knowledge of scientific and engineering principles involved |
3 |
|
|
5 |
Literature review: Project shows understanding of existing knowledge. (citations). |
2 |
|
|
6 |
Data: Adequate data obtained to verify conclusions. |
3 |
|
|
7 |
Variables: Variables/ parameters were clearly defined and recognized , controls used |
2 |
|
|
8 |
Statement of originality: What inspired the person to come up with the project |
2 |
|
|
9 |
Logical Sequence: Experimental design demonstrates understanding of scientific methods of research |
************* |
|
|
2 |
||
|
2 |
||
|
3 |
||
|
10 |
Linkage to emerging issues: Linking of the innovation with emerging issues or adds value to existing body of knowledge |
2 |
|
|
11 |
Originality: Is the problem original or does the approach to the problem show originality, Does the construction |
3 |
|
|
or design of equipment / project show originality |
|||
|
12 |
Creativity: Have materials / equipment been used in an ingenious way, To what extent does the project / exhibit represent |
2 |
|
| the student’s own effort/skill | |||
|
13 |
Skill: Was the workmanship of the display skillful? |
2 |
|
| Workmanship is neat, well done. Project requires minimum maintenance | |||
|
TOTALS |
35 |
……………. |
| FEEDBACK FOR THE PRESENTERS Strengths……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… |