"
Judges Comments
From 2013.igem.org
(Created page with "<html> <h1> <a href="https://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="https://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> Written Comments from Judges</a> | <a href="https://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 | + | 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 | + | 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="https://igem.org/Judging_Feedback?year=2013"> to the feedback page</a>. |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
| - | Please note that | + | 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.
