Agri-Science Fair

Complete your information and the contestant information below for the entry you are about to score.

In the excel spreadsheet click or copy the contestant’s link into a web browser. This allows you to view all data the contestant submitted for the entry, including their required manuscript document.

For each judging section the scoring parameters are outlined to create consistency. Choose the point value you wish to award for each section from each drop-down menu.

Please be sure to leave valuable and constructive comments. “Good job.” is not acceptable; “Good job highlighting detail x in the ____ section.” or “Work on ____ when _____.” will better benefit the contestant. Internal comments are only shared with SFT officials, these are not required.

Submit the scoresheet upon completion and advance to the next entry.

 

JUDGE'S NAME

EXHIBITOR NAME*

Contest Portion: Manuscript

Abstract

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • Abstract is brief and concisely describes the purpose, methods, results and conclusions. Abstract does not include cited references. Abstract is no longer than one page. Arrangement makes the purpose, procedure, results and conclusions clear.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • Abstract describes the purpose, methods, results and conclusions. Abstract does not include cited references. Abstract is longer than one page. Arrangement makes the purpose, procedure, results and conclusions vague.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • Abstract poorly describes the purpose, methods, results and conclusions. Abstract includes cited references. Abstract is longer than one page. Arrangement makes the purpose, procedure, results and conclusions unclear.
Highest points possible: 5

Introduction

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • Introduction answers the question "Why was the work done?". It clearly states the problem that justifies conducting the research, the purpose of the research, its impact on agriculture, teh findings of earlier work and the general approach and objectives.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • Introduction answers the question "Why was the work done?". It vaguely states the problem that justifies conducting the research, the purpose of the research, its impact on agriculture, teh findings of earlier work and the general approach and objectives.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • Introduction does not answer the question "Why was the work done?". It does not state the problem that justifies conducting the research, the purpose of the research, its impact on agriculture, teh findings of earlier work and the general approach and objectives.
Highest points possible: 20

Literature Review

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • The literature review details what information currently exists concerning the research project. The information includes materials used in the research and materials cited such as articles about similar studies, similar research methods, history of the research area and other items that support the current knowledge base for the topic and how the project might complement existing information.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • The literature review poorly details what information currently exists concerning the research project. The information may or may not include materials used in the research. Some materials cited include articles about similar studies, similar research methods and history of the research area. How the project might complement existing information is not clear.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • The literature review does not detail what information currently exists concerning the research project. There is no information included or it does not reference materials used in the research. No information cited such as articles about similar studies, similar research methods, or history of the research area. How the project might complement existing information is not clear.
Highest points possible: 20

Materials and Methods

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • Clearly written to enable others to replicate the study and results. Section is written in third person, encompasses all materials required, states the hypothesis and explains the study design. If used, the statistical procedures are included.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • Not written clearing to enable others to replicate the study and results. Section may or may not be written in third person, encompasses all materials required, states the hypothesis and explains the study design. If used, the statistical procedures are included but are unclear.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • Written poorly so others cannot replicate the study and results. Section is not written in third person, does not encompass all materials required, states the hypothesis is not stated. The statistical procedures are not included.
Highest points possible: 45

Results

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • Written results of the project are summarized. Trends and relationships are clearly addressed. No conclusions are made in this section. Data that can stand alone in the form of tables and/or figures are included.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • Written results of the project are incompletely summarized. Trends and relationships are vague. No conclusions are made in this section. Data that can stand alone in the form of tables and/or figures are sometimes included.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • Written results of the project are poorly summarized. Trends and relationships are not addressed. Data is not appropriately included as tables and/or figures.
Highest points possible: 80

Discussion and Conclusions

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • Brief recap of the results is included and shows how they were the foundation of the study. Sound reasoning is shown that conclusions are based on results, incorporates previous literature and relates directly to the hypothesis. Discussion refers/references to facts and figures in results section and provides recommendations for practice, future research and the impact on the agriculture industry.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • Brief recap of the results is included and shows how they were the foundation of the study. Unsound reasoning is shown that conclusions are based on results, vaguely incorporates previous literature and partially relates directly to the hypothesis. Discussion refers/references to facts and figures in results section and provides recommendations for practice, future research and the impact on the agriculture industry.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • No recap of the results is included or poorly shows how they were the foundation of the study. Conclusions are not based on results, previous literature and do not relate directly to the hypothesis. Discussion poorly refers/references to facts and figures in results section and does not provide recommendations for practice, future research and does not illustrate the impact on the agriculture industry.
Highest points possible: 80

References

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • References contain significant, published and relevant sources.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • References listed are somewhat significant, published and relevant sources.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • References listed are not significant, published and relevant sources.
Highest points possible: 5

Acknowledgements

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • Detailed list or paragraph is included acknowledging anyone who assisted with any aspect of the project and how they helped.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • Detailed list or paragraph is included acknowledging anyone who assisted with any aspect of the project.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • A list or paragraph is not included acknowledging anyone who assisted with any aspect of the project and how they helped.
Highest points possible: 5

APA Style/Spelling

EVALUATION HIGH SCORING:

  • APA citation style is used.
  • No spelling or grammar errors are present.

EVALUATION MEDIUM SCORING:

  • APA citation style is used.
  • Minor spelling or grammar errors are present.

EVALUATION LOW SCORING:

  • APA citation style is notused.
  • Excessive spelling or grammar errors are present.
Highest points possible: 5
These comments will be shared with the contestant.
These comments will be shared with contest officials only. (I.e., time penalties, appropriateness, etc.)
PLEASE NOTE: Please review your scoresheet before submitting. NO EDITING WILL BE PERMITTED AFTER SUBMISSION.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.