This year's competition judges were really impressed by the high quality of entries we recieved from students. It was clear to see the level of effort and passion that all students had dedicated to their investigations, across each of the three challenges.
To help you evaluate your investigation and prepare for next year's competition, we asked our judges which features they look for in a winning entry:
Research and ideas generation
The best entries demonstrated that students had thought carefully about the challenge they were going to address. This might include initial research or creative work to generate the designs students would test, so the judges could see how students’ ideas responded to real world issues.
Strong scientific method
Entries were strongly rooted in practical science, rather than being purely creative responses.
- Students generated designs to test and then developed a sound scientific method to test them, with a testable hypothesis and clear criteria for success.
- Students showed the judges how they would deal with dependent, independent and control variables.
- Students described their method well using words and imagery, so judges could identify that students had completed their practical tests with care and attention.
- Older students could explain more advanced concepts to show how their experiments were valid, reliable and repeatable / reproducible.
- Students showed their results and how they had taken repeated measurements and dealt with unusual results, so the judges could check their reasoning during judging.
- Students could interpret their results well and draw good conclusions from the data.
Use of real-world examples to solve the challenge
The best entries didn’t stop there: students could explain some further ideas to explore or confirm their results or to develop their creative ideas in new directions. They could apply their conclusion to modify their initial ideas and develop suggested real world applications to solve the challenge. Students showed the judges how they had reflected on their solutions to consider issues of cost or practicality, thinking of the end users for their ideas.
Clear communication skills
Whether video or PowerPoint, the best entries used a clear, step by step framework to communicate their ideas well and show the thinking and practical processes they had followed. The judges could follow how students’ thinking developed and understand their initial research and ideas, experimental design, results, conclusion and further ideas and creative solutions. These entries encouraged judges to take students’ ideas seriously.
- Videos were filmed somewhere quiet and students spoke clearly to camera.
- Students used a range of creative devices to share information, using still and video imagery, data projectors, whiteboards or paper to show their practical work, data and designs.
- Students avoided gimmicks but let their work and ideas shine through naturally.
- PowerPoints were well laid out and included clear and detailed descriptions, clear photos, charts and tables.
- The best entries avoided gimmicky design to put students’ work and ideas centre stage.
In both cases the judges were given enough detail to form their judgements, for example being able to see complete sets of results as tables or charts, and detailed descriptions and imagery of practical methods and how variables were controlled.
The best entries showcased students’ passion for STEM by demonstrating how they had gone beyond the minimum required to enter and focused their enthusiasm on their experimental work and design ideas, going the extra mile.
This showed how students had spent time on research and idea generation, and developed models to test using a range of methods including woodwork, moulding, 3D printing and more.
Students didn’t lose sight of the purpose of the challenge and followed their ideas though to give judges a clear idea of what they proposed and the science that backed up their ideas.