Honor’s Division

The Honor’s Division is for 9-12th grade students who wish to compete for the opportunity to be a finalist at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. The Intel ISEF is held in May each year in a different city. Students who compete in this division are required to follow the Intel ISEF rules and guidelines. All of the rules and forms can be found on the link below.

SRC paperwork for High School students who want to compete in the honors division is due to Dr. Monica Hall-Woods in the SCC Admin Building room 2442 no later than Dec 9, 2011. Projects must get SRC approval prior to beginning the project.

Click here to go to the ISEF Website!

Go to the Finalist section to get the rules wizard and downloadable forms.

Students in the Honor’s Division may participate as individuals or as a team of up to three members. Their display boards may be larger than students in the regular division as they conform to ISEF rules.

Students selected as finalists are expected to be able to attend the Intel ISEF competition May 8-13 in Los Angeles, California. The MTRSEF pays for all expenses with generous support from surrounding school districts.

Sample Judging Sheet for the Honor’s Division

Click below for a pdf version of this form.

Judge Sheet Honors.pdf

Project # ___________________

Judging Sheet- Honor’s Division
Comments
I. Creative Ability (Individual – 30, Team – 25)
1) Does the project show creative ability and originality in the questions asked in the
approach to solving the problem?
analysis of the data?
interpretation of the data?
use of equipment?
construction or design of new equipment?
2) Creative research should support an investigation and help answer a question in an original way.
3) A creative contribution promotes an efficient and reliable method for solving a problem. When
evaluating projects, it is important to distinguish between gadgeteering and ingenuity.

II a. Scientific Thought (Individual – 30, Team – 25)
(If an engineering project, the more appropriate questions are those found in IIb., Engineering Goals.)
1) Is the problem stated clearly and unambiguously?
2) Was the problem sufficiently limited to allow plausible attack? Good scientists can identify important
problems capable of solutions.
3) Was there a procedural plan for obtaining a solution?
4) Are the variables clearly recognized and defined?
5) If controls were necessary, did the student recognize their need and were they used correctly?
6) Are there adequate data to support the conclusions?
7) Does the finalist or team recognize the data’s limitations?
8) Does the finalist/team understand the project’s ties to related research?
9) Does the finalist/team have an idea of what further research is warranted?
10) Did the finalist/team cite scientific literature, or only popular literature (e.g., ocal newspapers,
magazines)?

II b. Engineering Goals (Individual – 30, Team – 25)
1) Does the project have a clear objective?
2) Is the objective relevant to the potential user’s needs?
3) Is the solution: workable? acceptable to the potential user? economically feasible?
4) Could the solution be utilized successfully in design or construction of an end product?
5) Is the solution a significant improvement over previous alternatives or applications?
6) Has the solution been tested for performance under the conditions of use?
III. Thoroughness (Individual – 15, Team – 12)
1) Was the purpose carried out to completion within the scope of the original intent?
2) How completely was the problem covered?
3) Are the conclusions based on a single experiment or replication?
4) How complete are the project notes?
5) Is the finalist/team aware of other approaches or theories?
6) How much time did the finalist or team spend on the project?
7) Is the finalist/team familiar with scientific literature in the studied field?

IV. Skill (Individual – 15, Team – 12)
1) Does the finalist/team have the required laboratory, computation, observational and design skills to
obtain the supporting data?
2) Where was the project performed? (i.e., home, school laboratory, university laboratory) Did the
student or team receive assistance from parents, teachers, scientists or engineers?
3) Was the project completed under adult supervision, or did the student/team work largely alone?
4) Where did the equipment come from? Was it built independently by the finalist /team? Was it obtained
on loan? Was it part of a laboratory where the finalist or team worked?

V. Clarity (Individual – 10, Team – 10)
1) How clearly does the finalist or team discuss his/her/their project and explain the purpose, procedure,
and conclusions? Watch out for memorized speeches that reflect little understanding of principles.
2) Does the written material reflect the finalist’s or team’s understanding of the research?
3) Are the important phases of the project presented in an orderly manner?
4) How clearly are the data presented?
5) How clearly are the results presented?
6) How well does the project display explain the project?
7) Was the presentation done in a forthright manner, without tricks or gadgets?
8) Did the finalist/team perform all the project work, or did someone help?

VI. Teamwork (Team Projects only- 16)
1) Are the tasks and contributions of each team member clearly outlined?
2) Was each team member fully involved with the project, and is each member familiar with all aspects of
the project?
3) Does the final work reflect the coordinated efforts of all team members?