Judges Comments

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "<html> <h1> <a href="http://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> Written Comments from Judges</a> </h1> <p> The iGEM 2012 competition saw the introduction of a rubric and ballot...")
 
Line 3: Line 3:
<a href="http://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> Written Comments from Judges</a>
<a href="http://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> Written Comments from Judges</a>
</h1>
</h1>
 +
<body>
<p>
<p>
-
The iGEM 2012 competition saw the introduction of a rubric and ballot system to help judges score teams consistently across all iGEM Regions. Our ballot allowed judges to learn the values of iGEM and score teams using aspects that encompass virtually all aspects of the performance of a team. We gave you numerical feedback with the average score from each of the judges. Feedback in this form was made available to you after the Regional Jamborees in 2013.  
+
The iGEM 2012 competition saw the introduction of a rubric and ballot system to help judges more consistently score across diverse iGEM teams, tracks, and regions. Our ballot allowed judges to express important values of iGEM—teams are scored across several criteria of iGEM performance. We gave you numerical feedback with the average score from each of the judges. Feedback in this form was made available to you after the Regional Jamborees in 2013.  
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
We like the numerical feedback, as it gives you a high-resolution of where you were strong and where you might have been weak. We added to this system in 2013 by allowing judges to also write comments to each team. We aim to have judge’s record things they like and constructive criticisms about your project. These comments were screened by several members of the head judging committee and added to your existing feedback page. You can access feedback by logging in and going<a href="http://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> to the feedback page</a>.  
+
We value the numerical feedback, as it gives you data on the facets of iGEM where you were strongest and where you might also improve. We have also experimented with ways for judges to provide written feedback to teams, and hope that these will prove complementary to what you learn from the numbers. In 2013 we asked judges to highlight what they felt was most praiseworthy, and what merited constructive criticism. These comments have now been added to your existing feedback page. You can access this by logging in and going<a href="http://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> to the feedback page</a>.  
</p>
</p>
<p>
<p>
-
Please note that, especially at the Regional Jamborees, judges are incredibly busy and don’t always have time to record written feedback. You may only have a few comments, but we are aiming to get them to you to help you improve in 2014.  
+
Please note that at the Jamborees (especially regionals!) judges are incredibly busy and we asked them to record their rubric ballots first, followed by comments if possible. You may only have a few comments, but we hope that they will help you and future teams improve as researchers, presenters, thinkers—and as the up-and-coming generation of synthetic biologists.  
</p>
</p>
 +
</body>
</html>
</html>

Latest revision as of 19:45, 25 November 2013

Written Comments from Judges

The iGEM 2012 competition saw the introduction of a rubric and ballot system to help judges more consistently score across diverse iGEM teams, tracks, and regions. Our ballot allowed judges to express important values of iGEM—teams are scored across several criteria of iGEM performance. We gave you numerical feedback with the average score from each of the judges. Feedback in this form was made available to you after the Regional Jamborees in 2013.

We value the numerical feedback, as it gives you data on the facets of iGEM where you were strongest and where you might also improve. We have also experimented with ways for judges to provide written feedback to teams, and hope that these will prove complementary to what you learn from the numbers. In 2013 we asked judges to highlight what they felt was most praiseworthy, and what merited constructive criticism. These comments have now been added to your existing feedback page. You can access this by logging in and going to the feedback page.

Please note that at the Jamborees (especially regionals!) judges are incredibly busy and we asked them to record their rubric ballots first, followed by comments if possible. You may only have a few comments, but we hope that they will help you and future teams improve as researchers, presenters, thinkers—and as the up-and-coming generation of synthetic biologists.