UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Science fair project adjudication : a study of 3 judges Kiddell, Robert Bartram 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 K52.pdf [ 6.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097212.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097212-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097212-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097212-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097212-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097212-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097212-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097212-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097212.ris

Full Text

SCIENCE FAIR PROJECT ADJUDICATION: A STUDY OF 3 JUDGES By ROBERT BARTRAM KIDDELL B . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a , 1978 C e r t . E d . , B r a n d o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1979  THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department  We  of Science  Education)  a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as to the r e q u i r e d  conforming  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA MARCH, 1987 ©  Robert Bartram  Kiddell,  1987  OF  In presenting  this thesis in partial fulfilment  of the requirements for an advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department  or  by his  or  her  representatives.  It  is  understood  that  copying  or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6(3/81)  ABSTRACT  This  study  experimental judging  with  what  Audio-recordings  t h e same s t u d e n t  these  insight judges  judges  looked  p r o j e c t and how t h e j u d g e s  each judge p r o v i d e d t h e data  base p r o v i d e d that  science f a i r  conversation.  conversations with  investigated  of  and an i n  base f o r t h i s  for  conducted  three depth  interview  study.  fair project.  ii  i n evaluating  a  judges'  This  i n t o t h e j u d g i n g t a s k and r e v e a l e d  f e l t were i m p o r t a n t  i n an  a  data  aspects science  TABLE 0 £ CONTENTS Page Chapter  1  1  H i s t or i c a l The G r e a t Debate Statement of the Problem Statement of Hypotheses L i m i t a t i o n s o f the Study Definitions  r  Chapter 2  1 2 5 6 ....7 7 12  L i t e r a t u r e R e l a t e d t o the Problem C o n t e x t o f the Study - R e g i o n a l Concerns A R e v i e w o f Methods Used i n t h e S t u d y Stimulated Recall A Formal C o n v e r s a t i o n Unique F e a t u r e s o f a J u d g i n g C o n v e r s a t i o n Analyzing the Judging Conversations Summary Chapter 3  ...12 15 17 17 19 21 22 25 27  Subject Selection Research Design A n a l y s i s o f Data Summary  27 31 34 38  Chapter 4  39  Introduction 39 Request Sequences 40 A Comparison o f Flow C h a r t s 50 C o n f i r m a t i o n o f the T o p i c o f each Request Sequence 54 Judges' Order of T o p i c s 64 J u d g e s ' E m p h a s i s on e a c h T o p i c 66 Youth Science Foundation C r i t e r i a versus the Judge's T o p i c s 70 S t a t e m e n t s by t h e J u d g e s .....75 A D e s c r i p t i o n o f Each Judge's S t y l e 82 Two o f a K i n d .82 Odd Man Out 85 R e f l e c t i o n s on S t y l e s 88 Chapter 5  ..92  Overview o f the Study C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s Recommendations Suggestions f o r Further Research C l o s i n g Comments  li'l  92 ...92 97 98 99  B i b l iography  100  A p p e n d i x A: A D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e P r o j e c t  102  A p p e n d i x B: Y o u t h S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n C r i t e r i a  110  A p p e n d i x C: T r a n s c r i p t o f Judge B's "Judging Conversation"  113  A p p e n d i x D:  120  Appendix  Interview  Protocol  f o r Judge B  E: A T r a n s c r i p t of the I n t e r v i e w o f Judge B by t h e R e s e a r c h e r  124  LIST 0 £  TABLES  Number  Page  1.  Judges' I n i t i a t i o n s , Reinitiations, F o l l o w - u p s , and R e q u e s t S e q u e n c e s  2.  Judges' Questions, and One  51  Statements,  Word U t t e r a n c e s  52  3.  Expression of Topics  by Judge  A  56  4.  Expression of Topics  by Judge B  58  5.  Expression of Topics  by Judge  60  6.  Judges' Order of T o p i c s  65  7.  Judges' Emphasis  68  8.  J u d g e s ' use o f t h e Y.S.F.'s S c i e n t i f i c Thought C r i t e r i a S t a t e m e n t s by t h e J u d g e s . .  9.  on e a c h T o p i c  C  72 76  L I S T OF FIGURES Number  Page Key f o r F i g u r e s 4:1, 4:2, and 4 : 3  41  4:1.  Request Sequences o f Judge A  42  4:2.  R e q u e s t S e q u e n c e s o f Judge B  44  4:3.  R e q u e s t S e q u e n c e s o f Judge C  .46  vi  Acknowledgement I  thank  committee,  Dr.  for  proved v i t a l  R.  W.  Carlisle,  his assistance,  chairman  guidance,  t o s t e e r me  my  masters  and f r i e n d s h i p  which  I c o u l d not  have  t o the c o m p l e t i o n of t h i s study.  hoped f o r a b e t t e r m e n t o r  of  around those o b s t a c l e s  that  s o m e t i m e s seemed i n s u r m o u n t a b l e .  A  special  creativity  which  approaches  The  t h a n k s t o Dr. assisted  G.  Erickson for h i s  humour  i n the f o r m u l a t i o n of ideas  and  and  the  t o the conduct of r e s e a r c h .  green  t e a p r o v i d e d by Mrs.  Carlisle,  otner graduate s t u d e n t s ,  and t h e c o o p e r a t i o n o f  coordinator  science  fairs  Lastly,  I t h a n k my  family  Selina,  for their  of  in British  the support Mrs.  Columbia  P.  was  of  Leigh greatly  appreciated.  ana  C.  B.  proofreading this  especially  patience through times which  f r o m t h e warmth o f t h e i r father,  and f r i e n d s ,  Kiddell,  friendship.  In p a r t i c u l a r ,  my  mother  t o o k me  away  I thank  my  f o r h i s e n c o u r a g e m e n t and a s s i s t a n c e i n  document.  Chapter  1  science  f a i r i n Canada was  Historical  The  first  Winnipeg. 1961,  organized  Science  Science  activities.  Foundation  interpretation  i n 1966  Foundation.  the  F a i r s C o u n c i l was The  executive  o f Canada be  By  under  s e t up  prior 1969,  to the 30  until,  in  to  coordinate  committee of the  i n 1966,  banner.  Canadian  t h a t t h e name Y o u t h  adopted t o convey a  t h i s new  in  country  of the o r g a n i z a t i o n s a c t i v i t i e s .  flourished  existed  more  exact  Science  fairs  A total  of  25  i n c o r p o r a t i o n of the Youth  regional science  fairs  fairs Science  were i n o p e r a t i o n  1984).  In Youth  1986  more t h a n  Science  majority years). with  across  F a i r s C o u n c i l recommended,  Science  (YSF,  spread  the Canadian S c i e n c e  science f a i r  have  fairs  i n 1959  of  79  regional fairs  Foundation these  fairs  Participants  were  representing a l l involved school expected  the equipment used t o c o l l e c t  including  hypothesis,  conclusions; Foundation, presentations adjudicators affiliation.  and  a  method,  In  about  their  were  adults,  Science  ten aged  students  t o have a  summary  table  of  project for  the  u s u a l l y w i t h some teachers,  (Youth  report,  oral  adjudicators.  scientists  of and  and  Science  prepared  sort  The (7-19  observations  students  the  display,  a final  explanation  addition,  1  provinces.  their data;  posterboard  1985).  were a f f i l i a t e d w i t h  The  science science  supervisors of  i n the school  the a d j u d i c a t o r s i n v o l v e d i n these  expected  to  judging  criteria  (Y.S.F.). by The  system t y p i f y  d e t e r m i n e awards on t h e provided  by  which organizes  fairs. basis  fairs  many  pre-established  Science  Foundation  i n Canada were  influenced  and h o s t s  a c t i v e promotion of science  of  A d j u d i c a t o r s were of  t h e Youth  A l l regional science f a i r s  t h e Y.S.F.  the occupations  t h e C.W.S.F.  each  year.  h a s been an i m p o r t a n t  part  o f t h e Y.S.F. s i n c e i t was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n 1 9 6 6 .  IhS. Great  A science the  Debate  d e b a t e among e d u c a t o r s fairs  value  exists.  of f a i r s  science  relations.  unsophisticated  teacher,  at  in  gains,  the  classroom  on t h e o t h e r  teacher"  aspects  are  t o evaluate  in  of  stress science,  of the process  improved  public  hand, c l a i m t h e f a i r s  "provide  promote  a r e too time  (Speece,  of a science  contentious expected  and  employ s u b j e c t i v e and i m p r e c i s e  t o o e a r l y an a g e ,  judging  science f a i r s  understanding  and r e q u i r e t o o much s c i e n t i f i c  the elementary  The  who f a v o u r  experimentation,  competitiveness, students  social  learning Critics,  Authors  about t h e v a l u e  i n terms o f i n c r e a s e d i n t e r e s t  i n c r e a s e d knowledge, of  and s c i e n t i s t s  unwholesome judging,  consuming  involve f o r the  k n o w l e d g e on t h e p a r t o f  1978).  f a i r seems t o be one o f t h e more  o f t h e debate about s c i e n c e science  projects f a i r l y  2  fairs. and  Judges  objectively  according projects  to  pre-set  that  do  instances  "good"  evaluate.  fit  by  these  that  authors  suggested  provided  the  is  as  the  the  1980 ,  a need  organizers.  criteria  are  judges  criteria  (Smith,  there  by  pre-set  h i g h marks  science  Some  have  1986)  not  rewarded  contain  criteria  are and  for  Yet  in  some  believe  they  not  designed  L a g u e u x and  the  judges  to  to  Amols, be  more  objective.  Delegates  to  Calgary  1986 a l s o  fairs.  Each  fairs  in  Foundation  a  committee  Wide  that Science  Currently, intended  to  projects.  The  the  be  all  over being  No p u b l i s h e d  by  the  of  of  the  judging c r i t e r i a  be  important.  judges. for  science  practical  judging  implications for  The  V.S.F.'s  students  o n how t o  organizing organize  not is  3  might  Science  have  on an  to  equal  of be  basis  1 986). by  the  the  the  important  as  any  value is  of part and  thought  such  a  participants  provided  projects.  Y.S.F.  value  described  organizers,  their  C.W.S.F.  new m e t h o d s  known but  committee  science  that  Therefore is  science  Youth  assess has  the  in  the  provided to  fairs.  at  compete  however,  adjudication  reveals  by  criteria  judges  of  79 r e g i o n a l  suggested  criteria  study,  Examining  judging  might  the  Y.S.F.'s  the  formed  (C.W.S.F.)  judging  the  D i s c u s s i o n Paper,  judging  used  the  of  judging  projects  Fair  one  committee new  Fair  Science about  represented  therefore  so  concerns  Concern  (Y.S.F.).  and  developed (Canada  delegate  in  Canada Wide  raised  Canada.  resulted  judging  the  These  are the of use to study and  guidelines guidelines  included  the  expected  to  adhered As  to  Y.S.F.'s follow  these  they  criteria  d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with  expressed  (Canada Wide  careful  look  experimental  As fair  Whatever  the  need  to  project  The  be  reason out  as  conversation  and  the  of  or  judging  the  1986),  of  judging  difficult  for  been a an  research  research  that  judges  process.  to  they  This  fairs  science  there  and what  science  on s c i e n c e  too  look  has  appropriate.  judging of  judges  known.  adjudicate  the  of  judges  not  Paper,  they  and  considered  not  judging  literature  judges  project.  was  studied  lack  fair  categories  might  the  Y.S.F. have  student. so  topics.  students  which  originality,  called  the  revealed  conversed with  topics  by  described  or  were  therefore  has  the  study  e.g.  the  provided  for  what  they  themes  experiment  seems  insignificant  pilot  compare  have  the  Y.S.F.  were  fair  examine.  remains do  the  as  they  study  focuses  on  used  themes  or  process.  categories  judges  over  as  judges or  Discussion  do  a l t h o u g h much o f  a science  judging  These  no r e s e a r c h e r  the  Whether  method  Science Fair  fair  find  adjudicate  current  science  researchers to  the  judges  concern  projects  p r o v i d e d by t h e  what  projects,  Perhaps  adjudicated.  at  mentioned  expresses  the  as  judging c r i t e r i a which  care This  judges  judges of  A d e s c r i p t i o n of  In  a l l people  this  way,  affiliated 4  was  with  implications for  a  science  look  for  in  a  parts  of  the  design,  study  used  at  the  the with  designed  the what  and  judging topics  process  of  part  to  criteria  judges  guidelines  the  in  fair.  issued  judging  judging of  use to was  science  fairs  might  changes judging  to of  Statement  reduce  of  one  science  the  topics  study  conducted  the fair  was  fair they  methods  information plethora  of  to  institute  any  c r i t i c i s m s that  necessary  surround  the  projects.  the. P r o b l e m  description  the  the  science  This  a  use  designed  project used  of and  as  and they  a judge's  to to  examine  " s t y l e " would  with  used  5  adjudicated  utterances  and  The r e s e a r c h e r result.  by e a c h  a student  described.  how j u d g e s  the  adjudicated.  techniques  a conversation  describe  judge  about  her  reveal  believed  Specifically, as  he  project  or  she were  S t a t e m e n t OL  In were  Hypotheses  order  guide  the  present  study  summary  and  the  following  hypotheses  examined:  Hvpothesis 1 utilized  in  student  2  will  Hypothesis Youth  -  The w r i t t e n  r a n k i n g the  Hypothesis  be  3. -  Judges  to  will  4  a  have  judges' in  Foundation,  those  Judges'  teacher's  the  (interview)  student's  criteria  used  by  will  be  with  a  the  project.  provided  by  Vancouver  the  (Lower  Fair.  conversations conversation  a personal  backboards  project.  r a n k i n g the  follow  Science  project  conversations  will  Regional)  Hypothesis similar  The  student's  important  Science  Mainland  judge  to  judging  6  in  style.  with the  students classroom  will and  be each  Limitations There  are  Study  two major  This  (1)  of_ t h e  study  was l i m i t e d  Sciences  Category,  Mainland  Regional)  British means  care to  Only  The  than  one  examined. relevant  to  Fair of  fairs  Category,  must other  three  of  or  of  from  of  are  methodology  fair  when  Physical  the  (Lower  Vancouver,  one made  other  S e c t i o n was  with  in  only  a high q u a l i t y  the  the  Vancouver  located  judges  exercised  science  the  statements  conversations be  judges  of  judges  Junior  constraint  study:  (V.S.F.)  who p r o d u c e d  student's  Care  the  e x e r c i s e d when  student  time  this  section  use  science  Sciences  study.  are  Science The  be  other  one  Physical  more  must  to  Junior  Columbia.  relevant  (2)  l i m i t a t i o n s of  category that  are  categories.  project a part  d i d not three  statements  in of  this  allow  judges are  the  for  to  made  be  that  projects.  PcflnitlQns  Science directly  Fairs  or  Foundation, scientific Speece  are  defined  indirectly at  which  experiments  (1978) s t a t e d ,  those  sanctioned  students that  they  have  " A modern  be  s c i e n t i f i c experiments  designed  and/or  conducted."  7  by  the  i n grades or  expositions,  Youth  and  designed  science  at  for  children  organized  present  exposition... judged  which  as  are and/or  fair  judged  that  for  conducted.  consists  1- 12 c a n  displays  Science  of  present they  an and have  Vancouver a  science  fair  Foundation. school 9),  and  directly  P r o j e c t s are  grade:  placed the  (Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l )  Junior  Senior  subject  ( G r a d e s 10,  of the  are  Computers.  (1)  each  in  Winning  7), and  covered.  (2)  Youth  of  d i v i s i o n s according  12).  are  grade  Physical,  (3)  eligible  to  (Grade 8  P r o j e c t s are not  There the  Science  but  only  also  currently  on  four  divisions.  These  Engineering,  and  (4)  to p a r t i c i p a t e i n  in a different  and  the  Canadian  year.  the  - a l l students  m a t t e r of the  were  physical  category  divided i n t o three  senior  (high  (elementary  this  science.  school), intermediate  life In  the  basis  The  four  sciences,  addition  different  age  in 1  each  sections:  ( j u n i o r h i g h ) , and  junior  school).  Physical 12  computer  on  project.  sciences,  and  entered  were d e c i d e d  science  engineering, was  a t t h e V.S.F.  These c a t e g o r i e s  subject  categories  in  the  Intermediate  F a i r (C.W.S.F.) h e l d  of 4 c a t e g o r i e s .  the  F a i r (V.S.F.) -  b a s i s of grade l e v e l ,  p r o j e c t s are  Categories  of  the  by  i n three  11,  each  Life,  Canada Wide S c i e n c e city  on  subject  categories  categories  entered  ( G r a d e 6 and  into categories  basis  sponsored  Science  Sciences  categories study  was  Category,  a t t h e V.S.F. produced i n t h i s  8  J u n i o r S e c t i o n - one The  only  section.  project  of  examined  Experimental involve  the  obtaining  experiments. to  make  gained  This also  Project allotted  to  dimensions  is  active people  (b) in  project  height  Science  develop  the of  draw  that  by  that  means  allow  conclusions  of  students  from  data  surveys.  the  as  maximum  provided  amount  by  of  space  the  Y.S.F.  The  (1.2  meters),  and  (2 m e t e r s ) ,  width  Foundation  (Y.S.F.)-  any  programs  scientific  scientific  coordinate and  and  which  teaching  progress  and  an  organization  will: professions  education  in  among  their young  in  a better  people  and  understanding  Judging  Fair.  young  science  international  and  extra-curricular  used  by  These  establish  activities  of  Canadian  youth  technology.  encourage  vocations  and  -  information  projects  and  projects  Canada.  science (c)  to  to  assist  in  includes  Dimensions  Youth  support  or  those  meters).  pledged  (a)  data  or  each  -  Projects  observation  are:  (0.8  The that  of  interpretations  through  depth  Science  the  in  Canada  technology of  the  and  role  to to  of  consider stimulate  these  fields  lifetime their in  minds  national  affairs.  -  Criteria the  Vancouver  rules  are  quality  the  provided  (Lower Mainland  intended of  rules  to  a science  9  be  used  fair  the  Y.S.F.  Regional)  Science  by  by  the  project.  judges  to  Judging  Conversation  and  as  judge  student  Each  student  brief  oral  judge  asked questions  as  they  exhibitor  interacted  an  communication  the  verbal  interaction  project  of  is  being  was e x p e c t e d  the  several  judges. other  adjudicated. to  In  types  between  prepare  addition of  a  each  utterances  student.  or  categories  which  originality,  care  judges  of  look  design,  for  and  in  parts  experiment.  -  Utterances  the  each  e.g.  the  V.S.F.  each  a n d made  themes  conversation  of  the  for  with  -  is  student's  at  presentation  Topics a  the  -  described  in  thoughts  and  ideas  Request Sequences -  the  way  student student  Requests  for  of  as  for  information.  when  they  study  vocal  sounds.  i n which  How t h e  asked  i n f o r m a t i o n were  as  this  for  often  judges  the  are  judges  interacted  specific negotiated  the  asked with  information. over  extended  sequences.  Initiations to 1  request  -  are  a linguistic  utterances response  975) .  1 0  the  function  (Sinclair  and  of  which  is  Coulthard,  Reinitiations and  the judge  (McTear,  tries  after  she or he has a  is  unsuccessful  again to secure a s a t i s f a c t o r y  response  1985).  Follow-ups well  - where an i n i t i a t i o n  student  or  Feedback - to l e t a student  performed. response  initiation.  11  F o l l o w - u p s may but  also  after  know  how  o c c u r not only a  student's  Chapter  The the  purpose  study  Several  of  discussion  this  how j u d g e s  issues  description  of  provide  of  the  of  the  chapter  £  is  adjudicate  the  focii  literature research  for  to  provide  one  science  this  study.  concerning  methods  a background  and  fair  project.  These  science theory  to  include  fairs,  and  underlying  a a  the  study.  Literature  R e l a t e d ija i h f i  Many While  authors  a  methods  few of  proponents which with  authors  promoting of  of  (1971)  fairs  discouraged  features  Paldy's  (1971)  between  experimental  often  made  part  problems  The v a r i e t y fairs  of  the  greatest  of  are  about the  the  and  of  interactions  12  indicate  areas  was  centered  rules:  those  aspects  are  on  suggest  associated  below.  nature of  of  science  particularly  among  enterprise"  non-experimental  judging  and  fairs.  Even  competitive  "which  scientific  majority fair.  presented  the  science  problems  competitive  criticism  of  the  recognize  cooperation such  fairs  science  He b e l i e v e d  for  subject  successful  'worried'  fairs.  unfortunate...  fairs  science  science  distinctive  a more  on the  science  improvement.  judging  Paldy  written  condemn  science  require the  have  Problem  the  most  (Paldy,  1971).  the  projects  distinction that  were  Since most fairs are supposed to stress pure science ( w h a t e v e r t h a t i s ) , a c h i l d who p u t s t o g e t h e r an i n t e r e s t i n g p i e c e o f a p p a r a t u s o r d e m o n s t r a t i o n b u t who does n o t really p e r f o r m an e x p e r i m e n t . . . i s a t a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s a d v a n t a g e i n t e r m s o f a w a r d s , ( p . 427)  Smith projects" was  (1980)  critical  at science f a i r s .  only  student  was  found in  in  critical  and  He b e l i e v e d  investigative thinking.  projects i n science f a i r s or  of the l a c k  science  fair  the c r i t e r i a Smith's emphasis judges  view  entries w i l l " The  themselves,  Popp,  recommendations concluded, science f a i r  which  projects"  Hedges,  in  of  the  investigative discussion  teachers,  students,  projects  and  1980).  reason f o r the  In  present  i s the o r i e n t a t i o n of the  them  Robinson the q u a l i t y to j u d g i n g ,  reflect  "the b a s i c  the encouragement of s c i e n t i f i c the student i n s e l e c t i n g  (Smith,  and  to.  .  .  discourage  (p. 39).  reference  should,  be j u d g e d  causes  t o improve  in evaluating i t "  between  science  involved  t o the l a c k of  most s t a r t l i n g  on n o n - i n v e s t i g a t i v e  investigative  of  j u d g e s as t o t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e e n d e a v o r  by w h i c h  ( 1980)  that  absence  he a t t r i b u t e d  "investigative  the essence  projects  The  agreement b e f o r e a s c i e n c e f a i r  of  and  (1974)  presented  six  fairs.  They  of s c i e n c e  t h a t the c r i t e r i a purposes,  thinking...  13  1974,  a  particularly  [the c r i t e r i a ]  o r g a n i z i n g h i s p r o j e c t and  (Hedges e t a l . ,  for  the  p. 8 ) , and e n s u r e  guide judge  that:  the judges agree i n t h e i r understanding of t h e c r i t e r i a and f o l l o w them as r i g o r o u s l y as p o s s i b l e . Otherwise a very neat, a very a t t r a c t i v e , or a s p e c t a c u l a r p r o j e c t may r e c e i v e a h i g h e r r a t i n g t h a n i t d e s e r v e s b e c a u s e o f a j u d g e s p a r t i c u l a r b i a s . (Hedges e t a l . , 1974, p. 8)  McBurney judging  not  McBurney of  professionally (1978) suggested  believed  concern  He  fair  than  qualified  a number o f  the  areas.  adjudication  Specifically  be b a s e d on c o m p e t i t i o n a g a i n s t a  c o m p e t i t i o n a g a i n s t another  the  judges  content  s e v e r a l ways i n w h i c h t h e improved.  of  problems:  for adjudication: i n s c i e n c e and  p r o j e c t s m i g h t be  awards s h o u l d  about the n a t u r e  identified  d i d n o t have enough t i m e  science  rather  expressed  of s c i e n c e f a i r s .  the judges were  (1978)  he  standard  student:  This s t a n d a r d s h o u l d be b a s e d on s u c h c r i t e r i a as t h e clarity and definition of the problem or hypothesis, integrity of the experimental design and investigative procedures, accuracy of data interpretation, and other s c i e n t i f i c q u a l i t i e s . ( M c B u r n e y , 1978, p. 420)  Riechard fairs  are  (1976) thought  competitive i n nature"  s c i e n c e f a i r s was  considered  of the s c i e n c e f a i r made  by  the  science  fair  criteria rating  author  on  for  (p.  257).  crucial  1976).  should by  (1)  the judges,  different  t h e o b j e c t i v e s and  14  types  The  science  judging  to the o v e r a l l  He  ensure  recommended that  the  (2) e s t a b l i s h of  projects,  purposes o f the  fair  at  success  Several suggestions  to improve j u d g i n g .  committees  criteria  t o be  (Riechard,  are understood  elaborate  t h a t "the v a s t m a j o r i t y of  were that  rating  different and  (3)  for  the  judges.  Riechard  "minimize  the  are  rated  what  a fair's  All  of  the  science  as  they  not  were  science what  or  judges  poorly  Context  and  looked  and  as  These  as  authors  so a d d r e s s  is  projects  or  designed  has  about  the  on  personal  been  published  America.  were  two r e s e a r c h e r s  researched  science  judges  they  would  philosophies of  based  it  no r e s e a r c h  in informal  for  where  but  (1984)  was  case  concern  Subotnik  The s t u d y  the  expresses  i n North  the  -  suggestions  (p.257).  fairs  fairs.  these  own i n d i v i d u a l  projects  research  describe  fairs.  project  fair  interested  examine  judges'  described  science  science  that  s h o u l d be"  than  (1979)  Speece  the  literature  judging of  examined  to  purpose  rather  felt  common j u d g i n g e r r o r  relative  experience on  most  the  judging  (1976)  science  settings  the  judging  specifically  adjudicated  but  the  a m i s s i n g component  in  same a  who fairs  they  did  process  at  to  determine  science  fair  field  as  yet  from  all  the  expressed  that  the  researched.  of  In  the  May,  regional  Study—  1986,  science  Regional  at  fairs  a  meeting  i n Canada  Y.S.F.'s  j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a were  certain  types  of  that  the  commented adjudicate  science current  experimental  Concerns  not  fair  of  delegates  c o n c e r n was appropriate  for  the  judging of  projects.  Several  delegates  judging c r i t e r i a could  projects.  15  only  The c o n c e r n w a s  be  that  used  to  several  science  projects  particularly  or  anthropological  the  same c r i t e r i a  the  delegates  science  fair  thought  that  altered  so  Other that  that  a  that  all  used  recommend  judging  to  to  likely  to  be  be  by  be the  If  impact  At least or  for  science  be  this  the  could  view,  passed to  as  it  must  by  all  examine  The m a n d a t e judging  concerns  form, of  and  16  the  be  be  adjudicated shared  belief  experimental.  judging this  criteria  judging  and  fairly.  the  the  were  but  reviewed  delegates  of  50% o f  fairs  the  various  recommendations  on j u d g e s  they  with  anthropological  of  science  astronomical  adjudicated  should  Y.S.F.  these  be  projects.  accepted  scientific  the  not  astronomical be  formed  to  could  conducted  judging c r i t e r i a  a m o t i o n was  reflect  Canada.  should  areas  changes  across  that  opposed  a project  that  experimental  Y.S.F.'s  committee  currently  the  projects  Therefore  to  as  delegations for  investigation  thought  the  those  present criteria  committee  was  and method  delegations accepted process.  there  of  from is  A Review  Of  Methods Used In  Jfchs. S t u d y  a l l the areas l o o k e d  at i n the l i t e r a t u r e  t h a t seemed most  p r e s s i n g was t h e j u d g i n g  description  of  judges  literature.  Therefore  order  Chapter  However, 3.  stimulated  recall,  the nature  and  of  "...a  recall  each  No  exists  in  the  the l i t e r a t u r e i n described  in this  used a r e d e s c r i b e d  divided  into  of the c o n v e r s a t i o n  in  three  areas:  between  judge  for  charting  the  student.  the  participation  research  has p r o l i f e r a t e d  tool  that  Since  t h a t t i m e t h e use  b u t has  settings (Tuckwell,  be e n a b l e d  cues which o c c u r r e d  and  a  during the o r i g i n a l  a  after  subject  with  first  been  in  which  situation  situation".  the event (Bloom,  17  his 1954).  with  a l a r g e number o f Under  i s a p a r t i c i p a n t i n an e v e n t a t reporting  used  Bloom ( 1953)  as one  an o r i g i n a l  i f he i s p r e s e n t e d  the i n d i v i d u a l is  to relive  was  not  1980) .  basic idea of stimulated r e c a l l  and a c c u r a c y  circumstances  is  i n t h e e a r l y 1950's.  recall  s u b j e c t may  vividness  time  with  in naturalistic  describes  t o review  t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e method  by Bloom  stimulated  widely  adjudicate  methods  was  fairs.  Recall  Stimulated pioneered  actual  literature  judge's conversation Stimulated  the  area  of science  used i n the s t u d y ,  This  student,  they  i t was d e c i d e d  t o o u t l i n e t h e methods  section.  and  and how  t h e one'  conscious  these one  thought  The  technique  of  stimulated  assumption  that  subjects  articulate  their  thought processes,  and  c o m p l e t e l y as p o s s i b l e  event i n which the subject in  recalling  Bloom  (1953)  activities states after  found  within  the  based to  1980).  p a r t i c i p a t e d may activity  which  accompanied  the subjects'  48 h o u r s had a 95%  ability  to  accuracy.  s i x t e e n days.  apparently  must  be done  Gaier  (1954)  from  94%  of  the  soon  photographs after  the  the judge  had  e v e n t as i s p o s s i b l e .  pilot  study confirmed t h a t the i n t e r v i e w  t h e r e s e a r c h e r must be as c l o s e event.  activities", experience" seemingly  overt  The r e p l a y  as  original  the  recall  o f o v e r t e v e n t s dropped  and  with  accurately  be r e p l a y e d t o a s s i s t  s u c h as  The  and  An a u d i o - t a p e o f an  a u d i o t a p e and t h e p r o v i s i o n o f o t h e r s t i m u l i  original  the  1980).  days t o 65% a f t e r  transcripts  on  recall  and t o do so as  (Tuckwell,  accuracy of r e c a l l  two  is  a r e a b l e and w i l l i n g  the covert mental  overt behaviour (Tuckwell,  recall  and  The the  judge's  recall  of  of  the  accuracy  demonstrated  i n t i m e as p o s s i b l e the  "overt  recall  of  to  the  checkable "conscious  t h a t t h e j u d g e remembered c l e a r l y  even  i n s i g n i f i c a n t d e t a i l s about h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e  students.  18  The of  a  pilot  judge's  stimulate  aided  with  the  the  their  pilot  is  and  has  A Formal  An  her  used on  that  it  student  also  was  essential  photographs  necessary.  recognize  transcript  and  The  remember  to  of  the  photographs the  student  not  was  more  literature  its  value,  study  of  project.  that  how j u d g e s  that  it  interesting  recall  conversed  (1980)  procedures  commenting  stimulated  stimulated  Tuckwell  recall  yielded rich,  indicate  Therefore,  in this  stimulated  component  engage  take to  were  "show[ed]  29).  The  in  place  (McTear,  i n which  links  a conversation  any  a  .  states  have  has  has with  those  reported  proved  promising  data".  conversation  and  Without McTear  series  speakers  between  because  linguistic  1985)  than  between  discourse  of  "turn-taking".  conversation  ways  and  and  the  Conversation  participants  turns  to  a complete  Detailed  were  science  important  does  and  potential  "positively  was  ability  that  a  recall.  projects  study  about  have  there  with  a viable heuristic.  student  who  judge's  judge's  considerable a  demonstrated  project.  The recall  also  conversation  the  students  and  study  related  within  judge  t h e r e was  content.  19  of  and  turns  (1985) turns. their  turns"  is  believed He  turns  at  turn-taking,  the  conversation  (McTear,  student  that  there  believed topically 1985,  p.  a science  fair  links  between  The  judge's  conversation.  conversation  Formal  persons  taking part  185).  Teachers  move  around  themselves In  this  duration they  study  chose  referred  to  judge,  only  as  deals  need  student's  Both  opposed  to  one the  sat  are  able  the  but  judges  p.  or  to  rights" position  to  stood  students.  "maximized  class  to  judges  the  1978,  such  choice  students  that  school  the  also  That  which  the  had  the  "formal"  (McHoul,  facing  little  while  "in  no o t h e r s  indication  differences  in  stand. for  sat  the where  dominate  The j u d g e  participation  the  a teacher,  has  student  a time  behavior  a result,  Judges  the in  a  rights"  be  may  at  of  other  concerned  focus  solely  with  type  of  conversations  a student.  and  the  The  judge  judge  is  not  individuals.  The  about  noise  and  and  the  external  on t h e  student  judge  project.  the  participants progresses. continued  have  a  (1978).  were  as  influence.  has  there  for  not,  one  McHoul  with  responsible  "stand  Judges  elementary  conversation  a  to  was  those  positions"  while  students  just  judging  However,  will  judges  with  by  at  right  are  judging conversation.  was  conversation  the  the  the  the  allocated  185).  p.  while  of  have  class  1978,  (McHoul,  a student  conversations  have  the  with  student in The  by  the  and  the  conversation,  conversation  either  judge,  the  i f  judge  20  it or  as  they  ensure does  are  the  falter  student.  In  the  only  conversation may a  only  be  classroom  situation avoided The  dealing by  directing  judge  and  concerted  with  t h e same q u e s t i o n  the student  effort  must  unimportant or w a s t e f u l  Conversations and  at  the  be  made  fair  method  the  covert  science creative  talk  fairs.  "Only  way" ( p . (1978).  science  fair  only  can c o n t r o l  maximum V.S.F.  Shegloff  formal  advance. differ  student.  eliminate  and  student,  student  can d i r e c t  have  recall  is and  i s a v i a b l e means o f teachers  an what  studying  (Marland,  1977).  the judging  speakership  situation  t h e j u d g e s as t h e y  A  conversation.  and  Stimulated  be  of  in  any  according  to  adjudicate  the t u r n s o f each p a r t i c i p a n t  at  a  i n the  conversation.  Sacks, both  judge  188) i n t h e c l a s s r o o m  And  to  between t e a c h e r  of  teachers  U n i q u e F e a t u r e s oL a. Judging  of  judges  i s f o u n d b o t h i n c l a s s r o o m s and i n  McHoul  judging  activities  may  luxury.  judges mental a c t i v i t i e s  l o o k f o r as s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l  Formal  same  i n the judging  content.  they  mental  the  the  between  t o study  question  to a different  have  by  utterances  academic  appropriate  do n o t  i n the classroom  science  considerable  a poor r e s p o n s e t o a  of  and J e f f e r s o n (1974) s t a t e t h a t t h e  and i n f o r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s  Judging in  Conversation  conversations  at  specified  a science  fair  imposed.  Judges  minutes t o a d j u d i c a t e each  student  t h a t a time c o n s t r a i n t i s twenty  i s not  The a w a r e n e s s o f a t i m e l i m i t 21  i s one f a c t o r  length in  typically have at  a the  t h a t makes a  judging by  conversation  different  from the c o n v e r s a t i o n s  Sacks et a l . (1974).  Another d i f f e r e n c e i n the j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n m o d e l s and  backboards.  These v i s u a l  judges  and  the  students  judges  are  not  totally  c o m m u n i c a t e as t h e y which they  The have  can  d e p e n d e n t on t h e i r  with  i t i s evident  the  crucial Therefore  thought  appropriate  tools  and  processes the  the  and  verbally display  of  essential  project  important  there  and  to analyse  judges  are  still  conversation  unique  partake  that  in  is  turn  analysis  were  the n a t u r e  of  a  student.  can  be  Sacks,  analyzed Shegloff,  c o n t r i b u t i o n to  the  of c o n v e r s a t i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n , which  idea that  students  conversations with a student  fair  'work'  the  Conversations  conversation analysis. an  to  form of a  While  t h a t j u d g e s and  the  A n a l y z i n g the Judging  judges'  developed  students.  judge's conversation with a  made  i n the  both  Students  ability  element of a c o n v e r s a t i o n  taking.  science  "props"  d i s c u s s i o n has  conversations  The  a r e u s e d by  of  use.  previous  one  stimuli  i s t h e use  in their conversations.  have v i s u a l  features  a  described  participants 22  in  as t h e y  using and  adjudicate  the  tools  Jefferson  "understanding particularly  conversations  of  (1974) of  the  regarding accomplish".  The  researcher  made  in  looked specifically  conversation  (1985)  McTear found  that  they  received,  description  consideration in  which  judges  of  they  linked  On  of  their  in  those  together  of  related  material  argued  that  requests  The  as  in  were  it  the  judge  with  where  the  conversations the  responses  over  extended  "important speech  context  study  called  was  isolated  the  pilot  occasions  children's requests,  conversation  they  utterances  together  function  occur".  utterances  another.  study  other  (1985)  the  student.  in his  and  McTear  a  the  individuals linked  sequences. beyond  with  at  of  request  go  to  a  sequences  many  student  a judge's  acts  the  revealed  to  of  related  to  utterances  sequences  the one were  (McTear,  1 985) .  A  conversation  involves He f o u n d technical  shifts it  from  almost  "usually  covers  one  to  topic  " i m p o s s i b l e " to  definition  for  the  term  a number  another" provide  a  of  topics  (Wardhaugh,  and 1985).  narrow  'topic':  U s u a l l y , t h e k i n d s o f t o p i c s we d i s c u s s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s are by no means well defined; in fact, the participants g e n e r a l l y have to f i g u r e out what i t i s everyone i s willing to t a l k about, and t h a t v e r y a c t o f t a l k i n g a b o u t what t h e y perceive to be t h e t o p i c h e l p s t o d e f i n e it. (Wardhaugh, 1 9 8 5 , p . 139)  23  The  utterances  cluster, 1985,  and  "the focus of that c l u s t e r  139).  p.  p a r t i c i p a n t s make i n  Sinclair  The judge  (1975)  used  from t h e i r  different  types  statements,  of  or  utterances.  one  word  The  data  topics.  utterances  The j u d g e s  McTear ( 1 9 8 5 )  student. in  found  used  in  used these  their  utterances  sought  from  q u e s t i o n s and s t a t e m e n t s  conversations with children  to initiate  exchanges.  R e i n i t i a t i o n s were u t t e r a n c e s u s e d by t h e s p e a k e r  1985). found  Sinclair  t o secure  a satisfactory (1975)  and C o u l t h a r d  opened  reinitiate.  were  again  u t t e r a n c e s which  or  were  Initiations  he o r she t r i e d  those  each  judges  d i f f e r e n t ways d e p e n d i n g on what i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y  used  (Wardhaugh,  i t possible to identify  conversation w i t h the student.  the  will  t r a n s c r i p t s of the judging conversations revealed  questions,  in  conversation  i s a topic"  and C o u l t h a r d  base o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s found  a  in their  conversational  response  (McTear,  system o f a n a l y s i s  u t t e r a n c e s c o u l d a l s o be u s e d t o f o l l o w - u p on a t o p i c .  follow-up usually  indicated  i n terms o f r e l e v a n c e  follow-ups  were  conversation initiation, how j u d g e s  No analysis  the value  considered  with  each  reinitiation, conversed  one  t o the discourse.  student.  graphical  part  These  student  In t h i s of  the  three  A  study judge's  • categories  and f o l l o w - u p were u s e f u l i n d e s c r i b i n g  w i t h one s t u d e n t  c o u l d be f o u n d  reinitiation,  o f a c o n t r i b u t i o n from a  an i m p o r t a n t  as  a t t h e V.S.F.  system f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g  the  t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e terms  and f o l l o w - u p .  As a r e s u l t 24  system  of  initiation,  i t was n e c e s s a r y  for  the  researcher  conversational (1975),  and  t o develop work  o f McTear ( 1 9 8 5 ) ,  Wardhaugh  Schoeneberg  h i s own g r a p h i c a l s y s t e m b a s e d on  (1985)  Sinclair  and t h e f l o w  and  chart  the  Coulthard devised  by  (1981).  Summary  Two  areas  identified  in  delegates science about  that relate the  this  topic,  has  surfaced  and  in  discussion  The e x a m i n a t i o n  r e v e a l e d t h a t w h i l e much  the judging  suggest  literature  t o t h e C.W.S.F. fairs  to the judging of science f a i r s  process  little  among  o f the l i t e r a t u r e  concern  research  was  the  need f o r a s t u d y  i n Canada.  the on  expressed  has been c o n d u c t e d  a b o u t t h e s c i e n c e c r i t e r i a and t h e j u d g i n g at the n a t i o n a l l e v e l  were  on  procedures  These  together  o f what j u d g e ' s l o o k f o r  as  they  adjudicate a science f a i r project.  The recall recall pilot  methodology used i n t h i s as d e s c r i b e d by T u c k w e l l  study  (1980).  w o u l d be v i a b l e i n t h e c o n t e x t study  was c o n d u c t e d .  25  was b a s e d on To t e s t  stimulated  i f stimulated  of a judging c o n v e r s a t i o n a  The  t o o l s of conversation  judges c o n v e r s a t i o n s .  The  a n a l y s i s were a p p r o p r i a t e t o study  terms  initiation,  reinitiation,  f o l l o w - u p were c o m p o n e n t s o f a j u d g e s c o n v e r s a t i o n . system no  f o r a n a l y s i n g a j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n was  appropriate  system  of a n a l y s i s e x i s t e d  26  in  A need  and for a  shown t o e x i s t the  as  literature.  Chapter  The judges fair  main p u r p o s e o f t h i s looked  project.  Science The  f o r when t h e y  Fair  The  1986  Youth Science  i n v e s t i g a t i o n was  Mainland  s i t e of data  what  science Regional)  collection.  regional science f a i r s a f f i l i a t e d with  the  3 presents  the  a c r o s s Canada.  r e s e a r c h methodology used i n t h i s  study  Chapter  and  s u b j e c t s used i n the  c h a r t of the j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n , their  (Lower  c h o s e n as t h e  Foundation.  following sections:  to determine  a d j u d i c a t e d an e x p e r i m e n t a l  Vancouver  ( V . S . F . ) was  i s 1 o f 79  V.S.F.  1  and  i s organized  study,  into  research  t o p i c s u s e d by  the  design,  judges  in  judging conversation.  Subject S e l e c t i o n  In  s p r i n g o f 1986  the  science  fairs  Youth Science criteria, and  formed  (Y.S.F.).  the c a t e g o r i e s , t h e Y.S.F.  V a n c o u v e r Lower M a i n l a n d Permission V.S.F.  was  one  of  79  regional  and  The  V.S.F.  of  used the  the p r o j e c t dimensions  the  judging suggested  A l l science p r o j e c t s presented  at  the  r e g i o n w e r e e l i g i b l e t o e n t e r t h e V.S.F.  obtained  to conduct t h i s  was  a c r o s s Canada u n d e r t h e g u i d a n c e  Foundation  s u p p l i e d by  t h e V.S.F  from the o r g a n i z i n g committee  study,  and  i n the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s c a t e g o r y ,  27  t o c o n t a c t judges junior  section.  and  of  the  students  The  j u d g e s a t t h e V.S.F.  professional  were g r o u p e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r  b a c k g r o u n d i n u n i t s o f t h r e e e.g.  judged  the p h y s i c a l sciences,  judges  was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a d j u d i c a t i n g 8 - 1 2  within  t h e same s c i e n c e c a t e g o r y  in on  t h i s study their  were p h y s i c i s t s .  final  members  of  student  was  junior  three  category.  Each  group  projects  usually  3 judges  these  decided  ranking of a project i n consultation with  the j u d g i n g group each judge's c o n v e r s a t i o n c o n d u c t e d on an i n d i v i d u a l  conversation  between j u d g e and s t u d e n t  basis.  This  was c a l l e d  of  A l l 3 judges  and age s e c t i o n . Although  physicists  other with  15  the  a  minute "judging  conversation".  The  pilot  research  project.  elementary  level  highly  ranked  judges  to  science school  study  science  related  p r o j e c t s were a l s o p e r c e i v e d  students to  h i g h l y ranked  during the p i l o t  projects  Therefore,  The  represent  according  a f f e c t e d the s e l e c t i o n o f judges  "good"  science.  were more l i k e l y than  experimental  the  judge  f o r the  projects  to  physics.  ranked  t o be p r o d u c e d by projects i n in  other  the  elementary categories  pilot  s e c t i o n w e r e s e l e c t e d t o be t h e j u d g e s c h o s e n f o r t h i s  addresses participate  of  the  three  i n the study.  i n the study  judges.  study.  judges  was o b t a i n e d  r e c o r d i n g s o f each j u d g e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h 28  junior  study.  were s e n t t o t h e home  A l l three  Permission  These  physical  the 3 judges o f the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s category,  Requests t o p a r t i c i p a t e  the  by t h e o r g a n i z e r s and  Highly  interviewed  at  agreed  t o make  t h e 11 s t u d e n t s  to audio who  had  projects  Each  i n the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s category  judge a l s o agreed t o p a r t i c i p a t e  interview the  with  judging  the r e s e a r c h e r  at the  science  i n a one  junior  section.  hour  audio-taped  w i t h i n f i v e days of c o m p l e t i o n  fair.  Each j u d g e  agreed  of  to  this  format.  The  three  knowledge  judges  and  professional  scientific  science educator,  of  a  p r o g r a m m i n g and a  major the  professional  research.  judges  school  physicists section.  The  which  completed category,  a high  who  V.S.F.,  3  was  was  instructed physics.  physics  a  Judge B  i n the and  teacher.  of  computer was  area  of  scientific He  taught  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a l l o c a t i o n  intentionally  arranged  physical science  familiar.  three  category,  junior  competent t o a d j u d i c a t e  After  C h i e f j u d g e commented t h a t t h e s e c t i o n was  particularly  29  of  these  p r o j e c t s were a l l b a s e d i n a s c i e n t i f i c  e a c h j u d g e was  junior  A  i n the F a c u l t y  research  judges were c o n s i d e r e d  as t h e  the  school  different  l o c a t e d i n Vancouver.  to a d j u d i c a t e the  t h i s category with  Judge B's  require  a  Judge  a p a r t i c u l a r view of s c i e n c e  Chief judge, the  background. an a s t r o n o m e r ,  physicist.  that  e a c h had  teaching of high  Judge C was  at  jobs  area but  She  an a l l f e m a l e s c h o o l  The  in  university.  a s t r o p h y s i c s g a v e him  at  employed  of the p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e  professional  Education  were  well  adjudication physical judged.  area was  science  Although students  the  were  subjects of this  also audio-taped.  were  depended  utterances.  Therefore,  of  a l l 11 e n t r a n t s i n t h e p h y s i c a l  junior  with  ensured  the  both  Only t h e b e s t  physical ensure  science  project.  conversations project  of  with  judging  first  placed  was  junior  junior  recorder the  Qualities  failure. second  Therefore, placed  the  This judges  by t h e j u d g e s , i n  s e c t i o n was u s e d i n  to  conversations  use  the  conducted  to  ended,  3  who  one  project  on  the  produced  the  of  a  tape  conversations  "The  Clothing  placed of  the r e s u l t  the three judging  the  judging  first  However,  the student  student's  this  in  a l l  produced the  o f D i f f e r e n t F a b r i c s used f o r  was u s e d i n s t e a d .  were  of the a d j u d i c a t i o n of  who  conversations with abruptly  and p a r e n t a l  of  s e c t i o n were  intended  student  category,  signatures.  as d e c i d e d  a l l the j u d g i n g  the  project  science  produced the best p r o j e c t s .  project,  category,  student's  The c o n s e n t f o r m s  as t h e d a t a b a s e f o r t h i s s t u d y .  three  the  who  judging  and  w o u l d have a u d i o - t a p e s  student  It  each  the  f o r the a u d i o - t a p i n g  student  t h a t a r e c o r d i n g was o b t a i n e d  best'  with  and  the students  Audio-tapes  permission  judges  t h a t sought student  physical science category,  study.  x  parental  of  judge's  i n the study.  researcher  conversations with  the  to gain  to participate  returned  the  both  section received l e t t e r s  permission  the  The c o n t e x t  conversation  students  on  study  Insulating  (Insulation)"  (Appendix A contains a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of  project). 30  RESEARCH  DESIGN  E a c h j u d g e met w i t h to  be  The  r e s u l t s from the p i l o t  judge  or p l a c e d  t h e j u d g e was s i t t i n g .  chairs  tape  i f they  The V.S.F. maximum  Additional  20  time  minutes  for  was p r o v i d e d  prior  each  Time  conversations.  was  This  also  a t p r o j e c t s w h i c h they  Upon  completion each o t h e r  had t h e  student  time  felt  conversation. conversations  the presence of after  allowed  the  required further  t o rank the best  any  judging  the judges t o  look  adjudication.  of t h i s a d j u d i c a t i o n period the judges i n order  with  o f 15 m i n u t e s and  to the judging  allotted  additional  again  student  provided  judging  the judges t o view the p r o j e c t s w i t h o u t  students.  these  seated.  a l l o c a t e d t h e j u d g e s a minimum  of  recorder.  between t h e j u d g e and t h e As t h e j u d g e s w e r e  t h e j u d g e was  fair  were hand h e l d when t h e  the m a j o r i t y of the judging conversations  standing while  with  to the science  showed t h a t t h e m i c r o p h o n e s i n  r e c o r d e r s worked best  was s t a n d i n g ,  when  for  prior  b r i e f e d on t h e use o f t h e m i c r o - c a s s e t t e  small audio  a  the researcher  consulted  three projects i n  this  category.  Only student  the audio-tapes who  produced the second p l a c e d  were u s e d i n t h i s were  study.  transcribed.  student's  of the judge's c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h  A total  Several  p r o j e c t and t h e s e  project  the  on  "Insulation"  of three judging  conversations  photographs  were  taken  of  this  were used t o remind t h e j u d g e o f t h e  31  project later  during in  t h e week.  components earlier was  t h e i n t e r v i e w e a c h j u d g e had w i t h  of  The  by t h e r e s e a r c h e r . to confirm  conversation  with  the  "Insulation".  The  sections.  first  The  information physical  on  how  science  section  conversations "Insulation".  who  interview section  produced  protocol was  the  to  student  Detailed  to  protocol  his  the  designed  or  her  project of  on  three  gain  general  the p r o j e c t s  in  the  The m a i n p u r p o s e  help  judges  who  produced  photographs  identified  consisted  junior section.  was  specific  the i n t e r v i e w  each judge a d j u d i c a t e d  though  were  t o p i c s each judge used i n  category,  with  which  Specifically  student  researcher  used t o v e r i f y  each judge's c o n v e r s a t i o n  designed  this  i n t e r v i e w was  the  remember the  of the  their  project  student  of  and  on her  p r o j e c t on " I n s u l a t i o n " w e r e shown t o e a c h o f t h e t h r e e j u d g e s a t the  s t a r t of the i n t e r v i e w .  memory  of the s t u d e n t  audio-taped the  judging  same r e a s o n .  conversation  and  conversation  was  Detailed questions  only  when  i t was  judge  a  with  was  judge's  s e c t i o n of  in this  section  were a s k e d a b o u t t h e  the for  judging  remembered  the  p r o j e c t on " I n s u l a t i o n " .  sequences  the student.  t o p i c t o w h i c h they  specific  played  the  s e c o n d s e c t i o n o f t h e i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l was  her c o n v e r s a t i o n  have  A short  c l e a r the judge  probe each judge about the r e q u e s t or  photographs aided  the p r o j e c t .  a d j u d i c a t i o n of the student  The  The  are r e l a t e d  t h a t appeared  Request  32  with  1985).  looking  to  in his  sequences  (McTear,  a s k e d t o e x p l a i n what he o r she was  p a r t s of h i s or her c o n v e r s a t i o n  designed  each Each  for  the s t u d e n t .  in The  judges time  were  a b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h what t h e y  o f t h e i r j u d g i n g f r o m what t h e y  interview.  The  majority  The  third  the  judge  for  "Insulation" The  the  s e c t i o n of the to r e f l e c t  and  thought a t the  o f p r o m p t s by  i n t e r v i e w were u s e d t o c o n f i r m  were t h i n k i n g a t  the r e s e a r c h e r  t o p i c s u s e d by e a c h  interview provided  on h i s j u d g m e n t  to confirm  t o p i c of each request  the  time  of  an  the  in  the  opportunity  the  presented  of  judge.  project  t o p i c o f each r e q u e s t  s e q u e n c e was  the  on  sequence.  t o the judge  the c o n c l u s i o n o f the i n t e r v i e w i n the form of a t o p i c l i s t . addition, further  e a c h j u d g e was insight  interview  into  asked s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s the j u d g i n g  p r o t o c o l developed  process.  at In  designed  to  gain  A  of  the  copy  f o r Judge B i s l o c a t e d i n  Appendix  D.  Judge the C  third had  with  areas rank  day  J u d g e B were i n t e r v i e w e d by  after  e a c h j u d g e by sequence  interview of the  the r e s e a r c h e r  t h e f o u r t h day. confirmed  the j u d g e s used i n the  a l s o served  to i d e n t i f y  p r o j e c t on  judging  judging conversation  the c o n v e r s a t i o n  they  had  Judge  interview of  the  33  each  the  project judges The  use  p o r t i o n of the a u d i o - t a p e  a s s i s t e d the judges i n t h e i r r e c a l l with  on  conversation.  p a r t s of the  " I n s u l a t i o n " i n second p l a c e . a brief  The  the t o p i c s  the j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n which enabled  p h o t o g r a p h s , t r a n s c r i p t s and the  the r e s e a r c h e r  the a d j u d i c a t i o n of the p r o j e c t s w h i l e  h i s h o u r l o n g i n t e r v i e w on  request The  A and  student.  and to of of of  Prompts i n t h e form o f q u e s t i o n s elicit  from  judges  and s t a t e m e n t s  d e s c r i p t i o n s o f how  p r o j e c t on " I n s u l a t i o n " .  they  were used t o  adjudicated  Each j u d g e was p r o b e d f o r t h e  the  topics  w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d t h a t " I n s u l a t i o n " was a good p r o j e c t , as w e l l as for  explanations of specific  with  the student  the  researcher  the  transcripts  interview  exhibitor.  through  where  specific  source  of the questions.  these  three  by  reading  hour  order served  long except  as  the  The t h r e e i n t e r v i e w s between j u d g e and and t r a n s c r i b e d .  were  crucial  c l e a r e r understanding  The t r a n s c r i p t s o f  for  of the  the  researcher  judge's  to  conversation  the student.  Analysis o f Each  Data  of  transcript  the  a chart according word u t t e r a n c e s , chart  important  j u d g e ' s u t t e r a n c e s was  identified  o f each judge's c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h  judge's utterances  this  and  Each  p a r t s o f the judge's c o n v e r s a t i o n  interviews  a  t o the audiotapes  same p r o m p t s i n t h e same  were a u d i o - t a p e d  establish with  listening  the  conversation  The t o p i c s u s e d w e r e i d e n t i f i e d  of the judging conversation.  included  researcher  parts of t h e i r judging  the  from  the  student.  The  i n e a c h c o n v e r s a t i o n were c o d e d and p l a c e d t o whether they  initiations,  topics  were  t o each judge.  were q u e s t i o n s ,  reinitiations,  identified The v a l u e 34  that  statements,  or f o l l o w - u p s . were  of coding  in  thought  one From  to  be  u t t e r a n c e s h a s been  well  established  Coulthard  The  l i k e McTear ( 1 9 8 5 )  and S i n c l a i r  and  identified  as  (1975).  utterances  initiations, up  by l i n g u i s t s  the judges  reinitiations,  expectations  column.  by  for  McTear  i n i t i a t i o n s which  were  first  or f o l l o w - u p s . U t t e r a n c e s which s e t  r e s p o n s e s were p l a c e d  (1985)  identified  the  in  the  initiation  different  types  of  s p e a k e r s commonly u s e :  Some u t t e r a n c e s a r e more c l e a r l y i n i t i a t i n g t h a n others. Requests f o r i n f o r m a t i o n and a c t i o n demand responses, f o r example. O t h e r u t t e r a n c e s , s u c h as s t a t e m e n t s , f r e q u e n t l y only p r o v i d e f o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f u r t h e r t a l k b u t do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t r a i n the addressee t o a p a r t i c u l a r response type. (p. )  Reinitiations unsatisfactory Reinitiations its  absence  occurred response  changed  was " n o t i c e a b l e "  their  vocatives  was  also indicated  that r e i n i t i a t i o n s  to  Rephrasings  when  either received  (Sacks,  and  1968).  more  likely  paraphrasings of the o r i g i n a l  therefore identified  as r e i n i t i a t i o n s .  reinitiations  used  were  to  and t h a t  words  35  and  succeed. were  study r e v e a l e d  i n the judging conversations with  student.  found  Speakers  initiation  The p i l o t  an  1985).  McTear (1985)  attention getting  reinitiation  or  (McTear,  not simple r e p e t i t i o n s .  prosodic patterns, a  response  t h a t a r e s p o n s e was s o u g h t  were u s u a l l y  make  no  each  Utterances  which  related  r e i n i t i a t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d  to a  preceeding  as f o l l o w - u p s .  initiation  Follow-ups  or  s e r v e a:  function . . . t o l e t t h e p u p i l know how w e l l he o r she has performed. I t i s very s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t f o l l o w - u p occurs not only a f t e r a p u p i l a n s w e r i n g move, but a l s o a f t e r a pupil o p e n i n g move... I n o t h e r words t h e t e a c h e r o f t e n indicates the value o f an u n e l i c i t e d c o n t r i b u t i o n from a pupil, u s u a l l y i n t e r m s o f r e l e v a n c e t o t h e d i s c o u r s e ( S i n c l a i r and C o u l t h a r d , 1975).  Utterances led".  were a l s o c l a s s i f i e d  Utterances  t h a t w e r e s t u d e n t l e d show t h e j u d g e  student's i n i t i a t i o n .  McTear  function As  a  of " i s o l a t e d  result  Each r e q u e s t  in  researcher  a  initiated  "request  by a r e q u e s t  they  occur".  sequences" for  as  action".  s e q u e n c e i n any c o n v e r s a t i o n h a s a t o p i c o r theme t o  a by  transcripts, conversation  beyond  speech a c t s t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e i r  interaction  i t i s related  sequence  followed a  t h a t i t was i m p o r t a n t t o go  McTear ( 1 9 8 5 ) i d e n t i f i e d  of  "judge  was t r u e when t h e j u d g e l e d .  i n the c o n t e x t of the sequences i n which  "sequences  which  The c o n v e r s e  (1985) argued  description  as " s t u d e n t l e d " or  (McTear,  judging listening and  1985).  conversation to  the  examining  the  with the student.  T o p i c s f o r each were  identified  audio-tapes, charts  of  request by  reading each  The t o p i c s u s e d i n e a c h  the the  judge's judge's  c o n v e r s a t i o n were t h e b a s i s f o r d e v e l o p i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l for  each  judge.  36  The  way  the  judges  judging  conversation  judging  style  of  initiations, questions, and  type  student  statements, of  each  each  interview  with  From  the  the  judge  was  the  judge's each  of  compared  project style  and  to  the  as  student  their by  follow-ups, utterances, used  in  also  an  the  "style".  The  the  number  of  the  number  of  and  by t h e  number  conversation with  on " I n s u l a t i o n " .  was  in  important  the  An a t t e m p t part  of  to the  judge.  interview with  the  and  sequence  with  determined  and one word  request  conversation  adjudication  by  each  referred  reinitiations,  validate  were  was  who p r o d u c e d  judging  interacted  seemed  student's contrasted  each to  judge  the  be  important  project. with  Y.S.F.  37  the  an  topics  Therefore,  used part these  judging c r i t e r i a  in  each  of  the  topics provided  Smrongrv  Data  was  adjudication judges' and this  of  transcribed. student  an  On  gain  with  science  one  (2)  identify  if  audio-taped  the  these  reinitiations, utterances researcher  used  p r o j e c t were  the Three  audio-taped  designed  important  t o (1) v e r i f y  parts of  provided  by  a project,  the  Youth the  with the and  Science  researcher  transcribed.  charts  follow-ups, by  into  projects.  Each j u d g e ' s i n t e r v i e w w i t h  Each j u d g e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n of  student  the c r i t e r i a  and  insight  fair  i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l was  establish  analysis  greater  the b a s i s of each j u d g e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n  F o u n d a t i o n were used. was  to  experimental  conversations  t o p i c s used, (3)  collected  with reveal  describe  38  student  the  questions,  each judge.  to t e n t a t i v e l y  the  was  topics, statements,  charted.  An  initiations, one  word  These u t t e r a n c e s  enabled  the  the  judge.  s t y l e o f each  and  Chapter 1 Introduction What  judges  looked  determined the science study. what  content  topics  they  and  However,  when  certain  way  looked  how t h e y  one  immediately their  three  they  of this  Second,  their  perception  what  actually  reconstruct and  used i n  a  a v a i l a b l e to r e c a l l  of these  projects.  So,  describe  judges  with  the  transcribed.  conversation". exists  that  of to It is  o r memory.  difficulties  the  thus  judging  j u d g e s may n o t be a b l e  dimension t o judging  in  may n o t  interview  actually  a  t o p i c s which  t h e j u d g e s may  Thirdly,  p r o c e d u r e t o a s k j u d g e s what they  subsequently  First,  o f an e v e n t as compared t o t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n  that a tacit  light  projects i n  important,  i n words some f e a t u r e s o f a " j u d g i n g  readily  existed.  r e c o n s t r u c t i o n a r i s e s when j u d g e s  took p l a c e .  i s hypothesized  science  topics  g i v e those  which are e q u a l l y  t o p i c s than those  This  a  difficulties.  f o r m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t i n an  conversation.  In  adjudicated  adjudicated  t h e j u d g e may o n l y  Topics  different  express  they  determined whether these  be t h o u g h t o f .  topics  report  f o r as  encounters  "spring-to-mind".  three  how  o f a p r o j e c t was t h e f o c u s  a s k i n g j u d g e s why t h e y  answering the question  fair  p r o j e c t and  The most d i r e c t method w o u l d have been t o a s k t h e j u d g e s  project,  not  f o r i n a science  do when t h e y  original one  i t was n o t  judging  student  appropriate  adjudicate  conversations  were  audio-taped  I n an i n t e r v i e w w i t h  39  an  the  science of  the and  researcher  t h e j u d g e s were r e q u e s t e d to  specific  of  Thus,  methodology  Tuckwell  on t h e i r  p o r t i o n s of the t r a n s c r i p t  transcript the  to reflect  the  actions i n relation  (See Appendix  i n t e r v i e w o f Judge B w i t h of  the  stimulated recall  ( 1 9 8 0 ) was u s e d t o p r o d u c e t h e d a t a  as  E  for  a  researcher). described  described  by  in  this  student  who  chapter.  Request  Sequences  Each  judge  presented  a  conducted a c o n v e r s a t i o n with  p r o j e c t on " I n s u l a t i o n "  purposes of s i m p l i c i t y set out g r a p h i c a l l y 4:2,  and 4:3)  Spradley and  were c o d e d and p l a c e d  more  Questions  inflection  Statements Statements intended utterance  was  by  statements,  i n a chart according  to  indicates the utterance  was  and p u r p o s e .  information  judge's  the  ( s e e F i g u r e s 4:1,  Each j u d g e ' s u t t e r a n c e s , q u e s t i o n s ,  exclamations  question.  For  each j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n  i n t h e form o f a f l o w c h a r t  In the flow c h a r t s , a  (See Appendix C ) .  a d a p t e d f r o m a d e c i s i o n m a k i n g model d e v e l o p e d  (1972).  t h e i r content  and c l a r i t y  the  each c i r c l e were those  from the s t u d e n t as  well  to e l i c i t  primarily  intended  to  gain  and were i d e n t i f i e d  from  the  as t h e c o n t e n t  a r e d e p i c t e d as hatched were  utterances  and  utterance.  flow  therefore  the students.  c o d e d were t h e one word u t t e r a n c e s .  40  the  squares i n the  comments  r e s p o n s e s from  of  charts. were  The l a s t  not  type o f  "Mmm-mm", " R i g h t " ,  KEY FOR FIGURES 4:1.4:2. AND 4:3  QUESTION  V  \  \.  f  \  \ \  S  \  \ \  S  N  4 \  \  STATEMENT  A COMMENT USED TO ENCOURAGE THE STUDENT TO CONTINUE TO TALK.  LINKS TOGETHER SIMILAR UTTERANCES BY THE JUDGE. (JUDGE INITIATED UTTERANCES)  INDICATES THAT THE JUDGE FOLLOWS THE STUDENT'S UTTERANCE. (STUDENT INITIATED UTTERANCES)  THE NUMBER INSIDE A SHAPE IS THE UTTERANCE NUMBER E.G.  INDICATES UTTERANCE * 12  41  FIGURE 4:1 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE A  ASKING TOR STUDENT TO HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT THE RESULTS (EXTENSION OF RESULTS ) CARE OE DESIGN (LOCATION AND PLACEMENT OE THE EXPERIMENT) 42  FIGURE 4:1 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE A (CONTINUED) REQUEST TOPIC OF REQUEST SEQUENCE  SEQUENCES  INITIATION REINITIATION FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW UP UP UP UP  EXAMINATION OF THE PROJECT SUMMARY.  -7-7-7V  \  \  \  >??•: V  •  N  •  /  N  /•  •  \  •  .  "'28x;l  \  ORIGINALITY OE THE IDEA.  N  \  \'  "C  2 9  y  (30J  ^ \  \  \  . \  \  \  32':- • :33\ X  • y t .  CARE OE DESIGN (PLACEMENT OE THERMOMETER)  ©\  ENDING  0  -  •  /  43  V  •  /  \  N. •  /  FIGURE 4:2 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE B  REQUEST TOPIC OF REQUEST SEQUENCE  SEQUENCES  INITIATION REINITIATION FOLLOW F0LL0V FOLLOW FOLLOW UP UP UP UP  INTRODUCTION USED TO "RELAX" THE STUDENTS. DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTS OF THE EXPERIMENT.  -(£)  X X X  ( 4 J—  V ^  J *  .  X  x  X  ' ''J  •  •  •  CARE OF DESIGN (AIR CIRCULATION)  (  8  J—  < B  X  RATIONALE FOR  \ •  ( l l )—  •  X X •  . X X X S • • ,  •/12%•  /•  s  •  •  r  ,  SELECTING A BULB r 14 j  WITH A SET POWER (40 WATT)  X X X '  X •  CHOICE OF MEASUREMENT (FAHRENHEIT)  X X • • /  ©-  f J " f J!" 17  16  (—*—T—"T—" • tf / f X X X '  •>20/N  CARE OF DESIGN (LOCATION AND PLACEMENT OF THE EXPERIMENT)  \  X  '  €> 44  .  \  \  \  •  •  •  /  •  •  /  •  • - ,  X X X • •  /  '18v •  • • X X X  /  FIGURE 4:2 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE B (CONTINUED)  REQUEST TOPIC OF REQUEST SEQUENCE  SEQUENCES  INITIATION REINITIATION FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW UP UP UP UP  GRAPHS  CARE OF DESIGN (POSITIONING OE THE FAN ) AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL HAZARD  '  \ \  \  /  \  \  •  \  \  •  \  \ 1/ , , A \ 2 8 )"'>29-' S  ,  ORIGIN OF THE IDEA  \  \  \  CARE OF DESIGN 33  (WETNESS OF MATERIAL) SOURCE OF INFORMATION  \ \  \  \  >40.M  Y / / / I  ENDING  \  •» s\ • \  '  \  '  N  '  N  /  S  :42 V  45  34  35  pi,?*  FIGURE 4:3 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE C  46  FIGURE 4:3 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE C (CONTINUED)  47  FIGURE 4:3 - REQUEST SEQUENCES OF JUDGE C (CONTINUED)  REQUEST OF  TOPIC REQUEST SEQUENCE  INITIATION REINITIATION FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW FOLLOW UP UP UP UP  (52JCARE OE DESIGN (AIR CIRCULATION)  -(W) (55j  ORIGINALITY  ©•  . \  ENDING  SEQUENCES  •  \  t*  \  S  \  • S. *  •  • V  . \  •  •Jpoi-  .  >63v\ x  48  \ \  •  \ \  •  \ \.  •  "Yes"  are  appear the  e x a m p l e s o f one word  in  the  utterances.  c h a r t s as ' s q u a r e s '  with  j u d g e ' s u t t e r a n c e s were numbered.  utterance  was  numbered w i t h  a "1",  These  rounded  utterances edges.  A l l  the  first  For example, the  second  utterance  was  numbered w i t h a " 2 " and so o n .  The  coded  utterances  "reinitiations", directing  sequence  judge  tried  topic  that  as  the  requested original  indicate  the utterances  example,  Judge  The  judge  question  data  initiation. are either  a  column  the  sequence.  student  responded w i t h  between or  judge  the  the  utterances led. of  For the  graphs.  The  last led.  u t t e r a n c e s w h i c h a r e on t h e same t o by McTear ( 1 9 8 5 ) a s  s e q u e n c e had  a new t o p i c begun.  "request  the researcher The  left  each  4:2, and 4:3 showed t h a t e a c h 49  same  t o the graphs.  flow charts contains the topic of  F i g u r e s 4:1,  were  sequence i s t h e r e f o r e s t u d e n t  are referred  new r e q u e s t  of  a reference  about  was  Follow-ups  about the o r i g i n a l i t y  Whenever j u d g e s i n i t i a t e d  considered of  Lines  a  response.  initiation  o r an e x p l a n a t i o n  asked a q u e s t i o n  These t o p i c s  1985).  of  where t h e  satisfactory  when t h e o r i g i n a l  flow charts i l l u s t r a t e  sequences".  a  (McTear,  by t h e j u d g e i n t h i s  The topic.  then  attention  R e i n i t i a t i o n s occured  A asked a q u e s t i o n  p r o j e c t and t h e s t u d e n t  "initiations",  I n i t i a t i o n s were  again  occured  misunderstood  as  were a l w a y s f o u n d a t t h e s t a r t  secure  mainly  or  utterances  and  (McTear, 1985). to  Reinitiations  classified  "follow-ups".  utterances  request  ignored  or  were  hand request  judging  conversation utterances not  c o n s i s t e d of s e v e r a l request used t o i n t r o d u c e or c o n c l u d e  considered  charts  as r e q u e s t  revealed  sequences.  similarities  sequences. the  However,  conversation  A closer look  and d i f f e r e n c e s among  were  at  these  the  three  judges.  A C o m p a r i s o n Q£ ins  The student  Flow  audio-tapes when t h e y  conducted  the  determine  i f  Charts  of  each  were f i r s t  listened  conversation any  order  judge*s  in  an  t o suggested  i n fact existed  flow charts  previous  section.  presentable each  ( F i g u r e s 4:1,  form  and  types  judge's utterances  Table individual initiations,  the  1  of the j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s  c o u l d be r e a d i l y  charts.  reinitiations,  Table  apparent  were  placed  a  more  were t a b u l a t e d  Therefore, so  of the  that  each  compared.  d e r i v e d from a  1 • shows  the  tally  of  percentage  of  f o l l o w - u p s , and r e q u e s t  statements,  50  To  some f e a t u r e s  apparent.  judging conversation f o r a l l three judges. percentage of questions,  this  The i n f o r m a t i o n was  and 2 s u m m a r i z e t h e d a t a flow  manner.  though the f l o w c h a r t s  of utterances  the  and 4:3) as d e s c r i b e d i n t h e  j u d g e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n s were n o t  numbers  each  Even  4:2,  within  with  e a c h j u d g e had  unstructured  c h a o s , a l l t h e u t t e r a n c e s were c o d e d . in  conversation  sequences of  Table  2  shows  one word u t t e r a n c e s , and  Table  1  Judges I n i t i a t i o n s , R e i n i t i a t i o n s , Request Sequences  Judge  Total Utterances (Number)  Initiations  Follow-ups,  Reinitiations  Follow ups  and  Request Sequences (Number)  A  37  30% (11)  11% (4)  59% (22)  9  B  42  31% ( 13)  10% (4)  60% (25)  11  C  63  16% (10)  16% ( 10)  68% (43)  8  51  Table Judges Questions,  Judge  Total Utterances (Number)  £  Statements,  Questions  and One Word  Statements  Utterances  One Word Utterances  % of Occasions Judge S t u d e n t Led  A  37  70% (26)  19% (7)  11% (4)  82%  18%  B  42  45% ( 19)  40% ( 17)  14% (6)  87%  13%  C  63  33% (21)  46% (28)  21% ( 14)  41%  59%  52  o c c a s i o n s where t h e s t u d e n t provide  the  researcher  leads f o r a l l three judges.  with  " s t y l e s " u s e d by t h e j u d g e s  Table  1  utterances Judge  judging  were  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the judges  of i n i t i a t i o n s ,  the  though,  made  judges. approximately  data  between  Judge 2.  student  identify  i n the  number  10  three  of  or  u t t e r a n c e s by Judge C  reinitiations. than  either  conversations  sequences.  than  Judge  of  the  other  consisted  Therefore,  each  C,  of judge  number o f t o p i c s .  from T a b l e  1 may be u s e d t o s u g g e s t  A and B t h a t i s n o t so a p p a r e n t judges  i n this  table  i s the percentage  l e d the conversation.  a  similarity  when we use  Judge A,  f a r more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n  difference  similar  and f o l l o w ups i n t h e i r  additional  judging  request  a  C u s e d 70% more u t t e r a n c e s  of questions to statements.  questions  Another  Judge  fewer i n i t i a t i o n s  A l l three  proportion uses  13%  on a s i m i l a r  The  Table  reinitiations,  form o f f o l l o w - u p s  A l l  focussed  varied  number o f u t t e r a n c e s and  The m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e  in  to  made i n t h e i r j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e s t u d e n t .  conversations.  J u d g e A.  attempt  i n the judging conversations.  A and B had a s i m i l a r  percentage  a basis to  The d a t a  look  at  a  different  for  example,  e i t h e r Judge B  or  C.  o f o c c a s i o n s on w h i c h  the  I n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Judge C  the  student  l e d more t h a n  h a l f of the  student  l e d i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h J u d g e A and B on l e s s  20% o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s .  53  conversation.  However,  the than  C o n f i r m a t i o n o_f_ _fch_e. T o p i c c_f_ E a c h R e q u e s t S e q u e n c e  The 4:3  c o n t e n t o f t h e l e f t hand c o l u m n i n F i g u r e s 4:1,  summarizes  utterances. were  the  judges'  I n most i n s t a n c e s t h e t o p i c o f t h e r e q u e s t  sequences  by  carefully  r e a d i n g the t r a n s c r i p t that to with  being  listening  the t o p i c  by  t o the  audio-tape  of each j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n .  the t o p i c s were c o r r e c t l y confirm  examined  and  the  identified  topic  4:2  identified  of each r e q u e s t  the judges  and  To  ensure  were  asked  sequence i n the  interview  the r e s e a r c h e r .  The  t o p i c s o f each r e q u e s t  sequence enabled  examine a r e a s of the p r o j e c t i n which judges  made  similar  statements  they  each  judge  were i n t e r e s t e d .  about the  importance  to The  of  the  judging conversation:  J u d g e B - The i n t e r v i e w . . . i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t [ p a r t o f project]. I tend t o j u d g e t h e p a r t i c i p a n t more than exhibit. . . . i f the p a r t i c i p a n t i s knowledgeable about e x h i b i t , that i s important. Therefore, judging  the  way  c o n v e r s a t i o n were h e l p f u l  project.  The  t o p i c s the judges  the v a l u e of a  Tables request  the student conversed  t o the judges  in  u s e d were i m p o r t a n t  ranking  the the  in assessing  project.  3,  sequence  comments f r o m  about each t o p i c of  the the the  4,  and by  5 list  the t o p i c s  the 3 judges.  the judges  A l o n g s i d e the  t h a t o c c u r r e d i n the 54  identified  in  topics  interview.  each are These  comments  illustrate  how t h e j u d g e was c o n s c i o u s o f  used i n t h e i r j u d g i n g  Topics the  common t o e a c h j u d g i n g  of design".  "controlling  topics  conversation.  "parts of the experiment",  "care  the  conversation  "originality  (Table  t h a t he d i d n o t b e l i e v e  were  o f t h e p r o j e c t " , and  Judge A and C r e f e r r e d t o " c a r e  the experiment".  3)  of design"  Judge B, i n t h e i n t e r v i e w  as  stated,  i n c o n t r o l s or c o n t r o l l i n g experiments:  There's been somebody t r y i n g t o w r i t e a r e c i p e f o r doing s c i e n c e and i t a l w a y s seems t o i n v o l v e c o n t r o l l e d e x p e r i m e n t s ...I think control i s one t h a t r e l a t e s [ t o ] having some s t a n d a r d t o w h i c h t h i n g s a r e compared . . . I ' v e g o t t o e v a l u a t e what was done on i t s own m e r i t s and n o t by some external p e r s o n ' s norm.  Judge "care  of  "controls" judges It  All  design".  Both  to identify  explained  Judge  A and  some o f t h e i r  i n the interview  C  used  request  the  topic  sequences.  what was meant by  i n t o the category  the  only  the other  of "care  topic that required  of design". such  t o p i c s were i d e n t i f i e d  o f common t e r m s .  55  careful  of of  These  "controls".  was c l e a r t h a t t h e " c o n t r o l s " J u d g e A and C r e f e r r e d t o  neatly was  B r e f e r r e d t o c o n t r o l s under t h e b r o a d e r c a t e g o r y  fall  "Care o f d e s i g n " interpretation.  by t h e j u d g e s f r o m t h e i r u s e  Table  3  Expression of Topics Topic Did the student d e s c r i b e and e x p l a i n the p a r t s of the experiment?  by J u d g e A  J u d g e A*s  Confirmation  I like students to describe t h e i r project to see i f t h e y can i d e n t i f y what t h e p r o b l e m was.  Has c a r e o f d e s i g n been shown? (wetness of material)  She should control i n t o the f a b r i c .  ( l o c a t i o n and placement of experiment)  We got i n t o the the temperature experiment].  (placement of thermometer)  I was a s k i n g a b o u t how she t h e t h e r m o m e t e r was i n h e r  t h e amount o f w a t e r  going  idea again of c o n t r o l s . . . a b o u t o f t h e room when she d i d [the had c o n t r o l l e d apparatus.  where  (air circulation) (placement of m a t e r i a l s on frame) Did the student explain anomolous results?  I was t r y i n g t o g e t h e r i t was strange...did hypothesis?  t o e x p l a i n i n what i t go against  way her  Did the student e x p l a i n the p u r p o s e and f u n c t i o n of the graphs? Were t h e r e s u l t s clear? Did the student extend the r e s u l t s ? Do the r e s u l t s agree w i t h the hypothesis?  Had she set up a h y p o t h e s i s . . . w a s there a connection between the hypothesis and the results. Did her results suggest an extension? Something else related to [the results] t h a t might allow [the student] to go on.  56  Expression Topic Project  Table 3 (Continued) of Topics by Judge  A  J u d g e A's C o n f i r m a t i o n summary  Originality  I t h i n k the w r i t t e n report i s important. Had she done i t , how much o f h e r work was i n t o it. Where d i d t h e p r o j e c t i d e a come f r o m ?  S e l e c t i o n of Bulb Choice of measurement (Fahrenheit) Awareness o f potential hazards  57  Table  4  Expression of Topics Topic Did the student d e s c r i b e and explain the parts of the experiment? Has c a r e o f d e s i g n been shown? (wetness of material) ( l o c a t i o n and placement of experiment)  by J u d g e B  Judge B s C o n f i r m a t i o n f  I wanted r e a l l y  to cut r i g h t to the science.  The w a t e r was e v a p o r a t i n g a l l t h e t i m e s t u d e n t aware o f ] s t e a d y s t a t e .  [was t h e  This i s c o n v e c t i o n a g a i n ...The [experiments] should be done i n some sort of standard c o n d i t i o n ..."The f a n j u s t s o r t o f s a t l i k e i t i s now?"  (placement of thermometer) (air circulation)  I t i s important t o d i s t i n g u i s h convection from conduction... How d i d she make s u r e t h e r e was no a i r g e t t i n g o u t ?  (placement of m a t e r i a l s on frame) Did the student explain anomolous results? Did the student explain the p u r p o s e and f u n c t i o n of the graphs?  She had done s o m e t h i n g wrong,  She had no r e a s o n f o r what she had done [with h e r g r a p h s ] w h i c h was n o t r i g h t . She had done something w r o n g . . . T h e r e was no way she was going t o j u s t i f y that.  Were t h e r e s u l t s clear? Did the student extend the r e s u l t s ? Do the r e s u l t s agree with the hypothesis?  58  Table Expression Topic Project  4  (Continued)  of Topics  by J u d g e B  J u d g e B's summary  Confirmation  I d i d n ' t read  any  Originality  I'm always information.  interested  Selection Bulb  I was  of  of these  w o n d e r i n g how  things. in  the  sources  hot t h i n g s would  get.  Choice of measurement (Fahrenheit)  The h i g h e r p r e c i s i o n measurement c o u l d be in Fahrenheit.  Awareness of potential hazards  She s h o u l d h a v e had an a d u l t s h e l p b e c a u s e s u r e can h u r t y o u r s e l f .  59  of  done  you  Table  5  E x p r e s s i o n o f T o p i c s by J u d g e C Topic  J u d g e C's  Did the student d e s c r i b e and e x p l a i n the p a r t s of the experiment?  Confirmation  She i s t e l l i n g me i n o r d e r what she d i d . . . r e a l l y l e a r n i n g about the experiment,  I'm  Has c a r e o f d e s i g n been shown? (wetness of material) ( l o c a t i o n and placement of experiment)  Had had  she u s e d a c o n s t a n t e x t e r n a l situation... she a t t e m p t e d t o c o n t r o l t h e e x t e r n a l .  (placement of thermometer) (air circulation)  I had f i n a l l y seen the p o t e n t i a l f o r her to have some r e a l f l a w i n g i n w h a t she had done. A sweater w o u l d n ' t have w r a p p e d t h e w h o l e thing as w e l l as a c o a t .  (placement of m a t e r i a l s on frame)  How why  Did the student explain anomolous results? Did the explain purpose function graphs?  student the and of the  Were t h e r e s u l t s clear? Did the student extend the r e s u l t s ? Do the r e s u l t s agree w i t h the hypothesis?  were t h e m a t e r i a l s p l a c e d on t h e d i d she p l a c e them t h i s way?  I think herself,  she  was  probably  a  little  frame  and  confused  What d i d h e r g r a p h s show? D i d she know i n f o r m a t i o n was on h e r g r a p h s ,  what  What were t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e experiment... this i s the r e a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g part of the e x p e r i m e n t or one i n w h i c h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r has a good o p p o r t u n i t y t o show u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  60  E x p r e s s i o n o f T o p i c s by J u d g e C Topic Project  (Continued)  J u d g e C's C o n f i r m a t i o n summary  Originality  I d o n ' t even r e c a l l  seeing her w r i t t e n report.  What made h e r t h i n k t o do t h e p r o j e c t . important t o determine i f the p r o j e c t i s own w o r k .  Selection of Bulb Choice of measurement (Fahrenheit) Awareness o f potential hazards  61  It i s their  Only T a b l e 3,  3  o f t h e 10 t o p i c s w e r e common t o a l l  4,  and 5 r e v e a l  experiment,  the  design exhibited  that  originality  three  judges.  a description  of the parts  of the p r o j e c t ,  and t h e  by s t u d e n t s a r e t o p i c s  u s e d by e a c h  of the  care  of  judge.  The  parts  o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t was a s k e d a b o u t by e a c h j u d g e i n o r d e r t o  help  understand the student's p r o j e c t .  project  was a l s o  i m p o r t a n t t o each  The o r i g i n a l i t y  of  the  judge:  J u d g e A -One o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t [ I t r y t o d o ] i s t o a s c e r t a i n t o some d e g r e e a t any r a t e , how much work t h e y d i d i n p u t t i n g t h e e q u i p m e n t t o g e t h e r and how much h e l p t h e y have h a d .  The judge the  topic  f o r c a r e o f d e s i g n was n o t i n t e r p r e t e d  i n t h e same way.  by  each  Judge A f o r e x a m p l e was c o n c e r n e d  about  placement o f the thermometer i n t h e a p p a r a t u s w h i l e  Judge  B  or C mentioned t h i s  a s a component o f c a r e  of  No o t h e r t o p i c s w e r e u s e d by a l l t h r e e j u d g e s . topics  Judge  interested  in  addition  Judge  A  and C,  results A  was  importance t o the s k i l l  Judge Both  B  mentioned  t h a t were anomolous the  only  or  adjudicator  and C i n i t i a t e d  to  r e q u e s t s e q u e n c e s on  they  62  were  ascribe  In any  summary.  the  i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between  a s shown on t h e g r a p h s .  request  "strange".  demonstrated i n the w r i t t e n  j u d g e s were i n t e r e s t e d  a x i s and y - a x i s  f o r example,  design.  However, t h e  were i m p o r t a n t enough t o be used i n a t l e a s t one  sequence.  neither  graphs. the  x-  Only a few o f Judge B's  u t t e r a n c e s were on of  utterances  other  B  judges  measurement", felt was  the  t o p i c except  f o r three t o p i c s f o r which  looked:  the  student  that entailed  other  percentage for  experiment.  and  expressed  on any  searched  s e l e c t e d and  also  Judge C u s e d a g r e a t e r  on t h e g r a p h s t h a n  the p a r t s of the  Judge  this topic.  " s e l e c t i o n of the b u l b " ,  "awareness of p o t e n t i a l s h o u l d be  why  t h a t the  student  t h e w r a p p i n g o f wet  of  the  "choice  hazards".  a b l e t o e x p l a i n why  t h e measurement was  concern  none  of  This  judge  a 40 W a t t  bulb  i n Fahrenheit.  Judge B  p e r f o r m e d an  experiment  m a t e r i a l s a r o u n d an  electrical  fixture:  ...if I had my k i d d r a p i n g wet c l o t h e s on t h i n g s I would insist that any volt stuff [electrical p a r t s ] be well insulated. This was a l i t t l e b i t r a g g e d y . That is one thing that d i d i m p r e s s me a b o u t h e r e x h i b i t . . . i t looked l i k e she had done i t .  Table conversation  3,  4, with  and  5 list  the t o p i c s used i n  the s t u d e n t .  A comparison of  r e v e a l s each judge used a p p r o x i m a t e l y final in did  placement of a p r o j e c t .  said  provided  each judge's  "style".  judging  these  tables  10 t o p i c s t o d e t e r m i n e  the  Each j u d g e u s e d d i f f e r e n t t o p i c s  their judging conversations. and  each  This combination  o f what  the r e s e a r c h e r w i t h a b a s i s f o r  63  judges  identifying  J u d g e ' s O r d e r qL  The  Topics  judges  Accordingly, emphasis  an  u s e d a number o f t o p i c s  as  examination  of the  placed  illustrates judging  on  the  order  aspect  all  similar  t o p i c s and  appropriate.  the  Table  The  a l l 3 judges questioned  the  as t h e i r  first  topic.  numbered student And  " c a r e o f d e s i g n " as t h e i r  1  way.  In  the middle  judge  Near  6  on  the  and  second  "parts  topic.  the  student  once a g a i n  on t h e  So in  conversation  the c o n c l u s i o n of the j u d g i n g  questioned  10.  were i n t e r e s t e d i n  of each j u d g i n g  graphs,  the -  judges s t a r t e d o f f t h e i r judging c o n v e r s a t i o n s  design".  each  adjudicated.  i n w h i c h the t o p i c s were examined i n  judges l o o k at the r e s u l t s , of  is  are  of the  three  topic  topics  of the experiment" some  each  conversation.  Interestingly,  of the order  they  a t the  a the  "care  conversations  originality  of  the  project.  There used  the  were a l s o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e o r d e r topics  in  concerned about the  the  soaking  the j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n . under  the broader  until  the  initiated  was  the next  conversation.  request the  I n J u d g e B's  to l a s t  was  conversation this  nearly over.  sequences first  Judge  judge A  was  of the m a t e r i a l near the b e g i n n i n g  h e a d i n g o f c a r e o f d e s i g n was  conversation  c i r c u l a t i o n " was  judging  i n which each  on  "air  not  circulation".  t o p i c t h a t Judge B l o o k e d  t o p i c searched  64  f o r by  Judge  C.  topic,  brought  B o t h Judge B  of  up  and  C  "Air  for while i t  Table  £  Judge's Order of  Topics  Topic  Order t o p i c searched Judge C J u d g e A Judge B  D i d t h e s t u d e n t d e s c r i b e and e x p l a i n the p a r t s of the experiment? Has  c a r e o f d e s i g n been shown? (wetness of m a t e r i a l )  ( l o c a t i o n and  placement of  ( p o s i t i o n of the  fan)  (placement  (placement Did the student results?  experiment)  of  thermometer)  (air  circulation)  o f m a t e r i a l s on  frame)  1,3  2  10  —  6  5  4  —  7  —  9  —  —  2  — —  3  Did the student e x p l a i n the r e s u l t s ? (Did the student e x p l a i n the l i n k b e t w e e n t h e h y p o t h e s i s and t h e results?) (Could the student extend  the  7  —  2  —  6  results?)  —  6  5  4  —  6  5  —  —  7  —  —  8  9  8  summary  Originality ( Q u a n t i t y o f a s s i s t a n c e from (Sources  of  S e l e c t i o n of Choice  1  e x p l a i n anomolous  Did the student e x p l a i n the purpose and f u n c t i o n o f t h e g r a p h s ?  Project  1  adults)  Information)  11  Bulb  o f measurement  Awareness of p o t e n t i a l  —  3  —  —  4  —  (Fahrenheit) hazards  8  65  The  sequence  used  t o s e a r c h f o r t o p i c s by e a c h  judge  was  h e l d i n a g e n e r a l way b u t t h e j u d g e s d i d n o t have a p r e d e t e r m i n e d format:  J u d g e C - . . . t h e r e was a f o r m a t o v e r a l l . I t wasn't a n y t h i n g I c o n s c i o u s l y worked o u t b u t . . . I t h i n k I p r o b a b l y followed [a] s e q u e n c e . . . I t ' s t h e same c l a s s i c t h i n g s t h a t a r e r e a l l y i n v o l v e d i n any l a b r e p o r t . . . , t h e same s e q u e n c e .  J u d g e s ' E m p h a s i s on e a c h T o p i c T a b l e 7 shows t h e p e r c e n t a g e topics. topic  This by  percentage in  their  The  the  60% high  three judges.  placed  Through a comparison  on  any  of the  o f u t t e r a n c e s t h e r e s e a r c h e r f o u n d o u t how j u d g e s v a r y  3  judges Table  utterances  18%,  i l l u s t r a t e s t h e emphasis  o f t h e 10  use o f t o p i c s .  topics.  average  table  o f u t t e r a n c e s f o r each  as m e n t i o n e d  7  used  percentage  shows by  the  previously average  e a c h j u d g e on  of  these  shared  three  common  the  percentages  of  common  topics.  The  o f u t t e r a n c e s on " p a r t s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t " was  "care of design",  28%,  and " o r i g i n a l i t y " ,  14%.  Therefore  o f t h e u t t e r a n c e s by t h e j u d g e s a r e on o n l y t h r e e t o p i c s . percentage  three topics  s u g g e s t s a heavy  by t h e 3 j u d g e s .  66  emphasis  was p l a c e d  on  A  these  Both  J u d g e A and  o f t h e two  B used t o p i c s t h a t were not  other judges.  to  l o o k at the  was  the only  Judge A as w e l l as b e i n g  placement of the  j u d g e t o be  u s e d by  either  the only  thermometer i n "care of  judge  design"  i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e p r o j e c t summary:  Judge A - I have t h e f e e l i n g t h a t g e t t i n g t h e students to write the t h i n g [ r e p o r t ] out themselves in full detail, a f t e r t h e y have done some k i n d o f a p r o j e c t , h e l p s t o c l a r i f y t h e i d e a s f o r them.  Judge fan  B initiated w h i c h was  judge  to  considered  mention  "originality". "selection student's could  of  come  design"  of d e s i g n " .  He  was  the  the only  However, t h r e e t o p i c s u n i q u e t o J u d g e B were  the  bulb",  o f i n f o r m a t i o n as one  of  of  "choice  of  measurement",  hazards".  " c a r e o f d e s i g n " and  The  the l a s t  However, Judge B s t r e s s e d t h e s e were c o n s i d e r e d  as  separate  c o n c e r n e d w i t h how  frame. based  position  aspect  under  t h a t they  the  "care  "awareness of p o t e n t i a l  Judge C was on  as  sequence about the  the sources  the  "originality". way  a request  T h i s t o p i c was on  67  as  placed  two a  the  topics  part  distinct  topics.  been  placed  as a f e a t u r e o f " c a r e the  of  t o p i c s i n such a  t h e m a t e r i a l s had  t h e comments made by  interview.  and  first  and  judge  during  of the  Judges'  Table 1 E m p h a s i s on E a c h  Topic  Topic  Utterances by Judge Judge J u d g e C A B  D i d t h e s t u d e n t d e s c r i b e and e x p l a i n the p a r t s of the experiment?  16%  10%  27%  Has c a r e o f d e s i g n been shown? (wetness o f m a t e r i a l )  11%  17%  —  (location  11%  7%  —  5%  and p l a c e m e n t o f  experiment)  ( p o s i t i o n of thef a n ) (placement  (air (placement  —  — —  7%  8%  —  o f m a t e r i a l s on f r a m e )  —  —  11%  27%  36%  20%  11%  —  e x p l a i n anomolous  Did the student e x p l a i n the purpose and f u n c t i o n o f t h e g r a p h s ?  —  Did the student e x p l a i n the r e s u l t s ? (Did the student e x p l a i n the l i n k between t h e h y p o t h e s i s and t h e results?)  14%  (Could the student extend  18%  1%  circulation)  TOTAL Did the student results?  5%  of thermometer)  AVE  28%  3% 2%  24%  11%  the results?) 3%  —  —  5%  —  —  P r o j e c t summary Originality ( Q u a n t i t y o f a s s i s t a n c e from (Sources  adults)  of information) TOTAL  19%  5%  10%  —  7%  —  19%  68  12%  10%  14%  Table 1 J u d g e s ' E m p h a s i s on E a c h T o p i c Topic  (Continued)  Utterances by Judge Judge Judge C A B  AVE  S e l e c t i o n of Bulb Choice  o f measurement  Awareness o f p o t e n t i a l Introductory  (Fahrenheit)  19?  —  5%  —  7%  —  hazards  and c o n c l u d i n g u t t e r a n c e s  69  8%  10%  5%  8%  A  few  judges.  t o p i c s or a s p e c t s  Judge  s e q u e n c e on made by were the  A and  the  B,  o f e a c h t o p i c w e r e u s e d by  f o r example,  shared  a l s o the only  C were on  the  one  request  t o p i c of a i r c i r c u l a t i o n .  judges t o l o o k a t the  two  8% o f a l l u t t e r a n c e s  "wetness of the m a t e r i a l " .  J u d g e B and  only  only  p u r p o s e and  They  f u n c t i o n of  graphs.  The  nature  analysis  of the f l o w c h a r t s  looking  at  (Tables  1  allowed  the  The  the u t t e r a n c e s t o 7)•  The  researcher  topics  and  three  Y.S.F.  judges.  skill,  t h e t o p i c s u s e d by  criteria Table  contained  8.  scientific project  There  are  thought  by  4:3)  sequence  of  provided  versus  the  judging  by  the  the Judge's  t o be  thought,  value  were  Y.S.F.  Topics  u s e d by  the  originality,  comprise the  Y.S.F.'s  However, f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f  scientific  three reasons  i s contained mainly  judge.  i n t e r v i e w w i t h each judge  dramatic  section.  topic  each  t h e j u d g e s were compared o n l y  i n the  and  request  examination  the j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a  (Appendix B ) .  and  for  criteria  and  an  for a "style"  an  i n an  d e t e r m i n e d by  e m p h a s i s p l a c e d on e a c h  sections scientific  creative ability  judging c r i t e r i a study  Five  and  Criteria  provided  4:2,  t o p i c s of each  from  science  Youth Science Foundation  The  and  to search  confirmed  compared t o t h e  ( F i g u r e 4:1,  order  determined  conversations then  o f e a c h j u d g e ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n was  First,  in this 70  with  thought s e c t i o n for  section.  in  on  the  science content Second,  the  shown  concentrating  the  this  the  of  a  judges  found t h e o t h e r f o u r content.  Third,  on s k i l l , the  Only  ground  criteria  t h e Y.S.F. c r i t e r i a  creative ability,  judges.  common  8  of  judge's  column  was  Y.S.F. it  that the  the  the c r i t e r i a  by  the  scientific A  thought  "yes" i n the  A "no"  means  to the  the  Y.S.F.  judge  were r a r e l y  similar.  shared only  a few common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  f o r example,  t h e background  use  The few c r i t e r i a / t o p i c s  a  readings. because  to hypothesize.  readings,  Nevertheless,  topics  t h e y were i n t e r e s t e d No c o n c e r n ,  though,  71  in was  the hypothesis r e f l e c t e d Y.S.F.'s  judges were i n t e r e s t e d  first i n the  h y p o t h e s e s so T a b l e 8 shows e a c h j u d g e u s e d t h e  criterion.  that  The f i r s t  Judge A and C had  w h i c h was p a r t o f t h e both  of  was a b o u t t h e h y p o t h e s i s and how  by J u d g e A o r C a b o u t how w e l l  student's  student's  and t h e  u s e d by e a c h j u d g e and t h e j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a  student's a b i l i t y  criterion.  from  t h e Y.S.F.  f i t i n t h i s category only  expressed  any  to the c r i t e r i o n .  criterion,  reflected  judges  n o t u s e d by t h a t j u d g e n o r d i d t h e  topics  were s i m i l a r  there  i n d i c a t e s t h e j u d g e used a t o p i c s i m i l a r  criterion  Y.S.F.  t h e t o p i c s used by t h e  t h e Y.S.F.'s j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a .  provided  The  s e c t i o n was  by t h e Y.S.F.  criterion  topic similar  and d r a m a t i c v a l u e were n o t u s e d by x  shows  section  scientific  contained i n the sections  i n the o r i g i n a l i t y '  between  dictated  Table  the  sections unimportant i n assessing  first  Table £ Judge's use o f t h e Y.S.F.'s S c i e n t i f i c S c i e n c e C r i t e r i a u s e d by t h e V . S . F . ( P r o v i d e d by t h e Y.S.F.) (1) The hypothesis was clearly and reflected background r e a d i n g s .  stated the  Judge A  Thought C r i t e r i a Judge B  Judge C  YES  NO  YES  NO  YES  NO  (3) The p r o j e c t c a r r i e d o u t i t s purpose to completion w i t h i n the scope of the o r i g i n a l p l a n .  NO  NO  NO  (4) The project shows an understanding of existing knowledge, use of adequate scientific vocabulary and d e m o n s t r a t e s an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of terms gleaned from reliable sources of i n f o r m a t i o n .  NO  NO  NO  (5) The experimental demonstrated understanding s c i e n t i f i c methods.  NO  NO  NO  (6) The s t u d e n t ( s ) h a s / h a v e an i d e a o f what f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s i n d i c a t e d by t h e p r o j e c t .  YES  NO  NO  (7) There a r e adequate data to support the conclusions. The experimental errors inherent i n the measurement made and i n t h e m a t e r i a l s used were r e c o g n i z e d .  YES  YES  YES  NO  NO  NO  YES  NO  YES  (2) T h e r e was an e f f e c t i v e for obtaining a solution answering a q u e s t i o n .  plan or  design of the  (8) The e x p e r i m e n t was r e p e a t e d several times to establish validity of results and/or statiscally validated. (9) The v a r i a b l e s a r e clearly defined and recognized. If controls were necessary, there was a recognition of t h e i r need and t h e y were c o r r e c t l y u s e d .  72  The  sixth  ("variables similar and  The  provided  by  further  C,  and  research")  of the  sixth the  Y.S.F.  asked  "could the student extend  the s t u d e n t s . were  classed  related  to  because  what  Table  interest  As as  the f i f t h  "Care  was  he  section had  Judge A,  scientific and  variables  of  used  was  ninth c r i t e r i a  C.  by  controls was  scientific  methods  Judge  not  methods  not  clear.  were s i m i l a r  to  judge.  keenly  which and  for  and  "Care of d e s i g n "  criterion  the s i x t h  was  Design"  b o t h J u d g e A and p r o v i d e d by  thought  t h e same p u r p o s e as J u d g e  the r e s u l t s " .  Y.S.F.  are  u s e d by J u d g e A  student  i n t h e c o n t r o l s and  meant by  d e s i g n from of  had  ( T a b l e 8)  B made no u t t e r a n c e s on t h e s t u d e n t ' s d a t a and  though  careful  what i d e a t h e  "Care of D e s i g n " .  t h e t o p i c s u s e d by e a c h  even  t h e Y.S.F.  criteria  e x p l a i n e d p r e v i o u s l y v a r i a b l e s and  8 shows b o t h  Judge  ninth  of the s c i e n t i f i c  This c r i t e r i o n  expressed  the  "Care of D e s i g n " c r i t e r i a  criterion  research.  also  and  c o n t r o l s " ) p r o v i d e d by  to those  C.  A's  ("future  interested  t h a t the  c o n c l u s i o n s c o u l d be  student  the second  and  had  reached.  " e x p l a n a t i o n o f r e s u l t s " was  As a r e s u l t  results  A  good  important  seventh  t h e Y.S.F. a l s o m a t c h t h e t o p i c s a c t u a l l y  a  to  criteria  u s e d by  the  judges.  The  Y.S.F.'s  scientific sources  vocabulary.  fourth  criterion  concerned  Judge B u s e d one  o f i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t seemed s i m i l a r  73  request  the  use  s e q u e n c e on  t o t h e Y.S.F.'s  of the  fourth  criterion, sequence  the  interview  was t o do w i t h  scientific  terms.  fourth criterion  The  w i t h Judge B  originality  revealed  None o f t h e j u d g e s ,  T a b l e 8 shows,  "the  provided  scientific establish (5),  of  validity  conversation  Table judging  the  methods",  and (8)  original or  "repetition  the the  No  with  concerned  "understanding of  the  of  the  experiment  to  criteria  (3),  These Y.S.F.  judging  8 shows t h e t o p i c s u s e d by t h e t h r e e j u d g e s i n with  thought c r i t e r i a  the student provided  are different  by t h e Y.S.F.  were n o t i d e n t i c a l .  Neither  criteria  the  thought  Judge A e x p l a i n e d i n provided  Judge B n o r Judge C a t t e m p t e d t o  provided  from  their  A few o f t h e  t o t h e Y.S.F.'s s c i e n t i f i c  i n t e r v i e w t h a t she a t t e m p t e d t o use t h e c r i t e r i a  judging  with  the student.  b u t even t h e s e  Y.S.F.  utterances  were n o t u s e d by any o f t h e j u d g e s i n t h e i r  j u d g e ' s t o p i c s seemed s i m i l a r criteria  plan",  of the r e s u l t s " .  conversation  scientific  used t h e  by t h e Y.S.F. d i d n o t  s e q u e n c e s by any o f t h e j u d g e s w e r e  scope  of  o f t h e Y.S.F.  remainder of the c r i t e r i a  request  request  and n o t an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  m a t c h t h e t o p i c s u s e d by any o f t h e t h r e e j u d g e s . or  the  use  by the  by t h e Y.S.F.:  Judge C - What [ I w a s ] l o o k i n g a t d i d n ' t f i t t h e Does t h e e x p e r i m e n t do t h i s . . . o r does t h e s t u d e n t weren't a p p r o p r i a t e [ c r i t e r i a ] .  74  criteria. do that  S t a t e m e n t s hX In  the i n t e r v i e w  judging the  e a c h j u d g e made s e v e r a l  of s c i e n c e f a i r s .  remarks  More  JJie. J u d g e s  p r o v i d e d from  to explain  and  of  interview protocol  judge's  "style"  was  judge's  interview.  required judge.  to  judging conversation.  So, T a b l e 9 c o n t a i n s t h e  i n the  t h e same q u e s t i o n s t o e a c h  a s k e d o f a l l 3 j u d g e s and  of the  s u p p o r t each  these responses.  responses t o q u e s t i o n s asked  The  the  These s t a t e m e n t s w e r e i n a d d i t i o n  made on t h e s p e c i f i c s  evidence  s t a t e m e n t s on  the r e s e a r c h e r t o ask  many  T a b l e 9 shows t h e q u e s t i o n s  the judge's responses.  The  response  t h e s e q u e s t i o n s p r o v i d e d more i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s  to and  d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e 3 j u d g e s .  Each  judge's response  to the f i r s t  q u e s t i o n ( T a b l e 9)  only  q u e s t i o n where a l l t h r e e r e s p o n s e s d i f f e r e d .  the  project  Physical  on  "Insulation"  Category  partly  and  s e t up a h y p o t h e s i s .  as  the  ...for his  "own  girl  had  i n second  because  the s t u d e n t d i d  Judge A p l a c e d in  the  an  Junior  experiment  Judge B gave t h e p r o j e c t a h i g h r a n k i n g  done a " c o m p e t e n t j o b " .  the whole group"  place  i s the  and  Judge C had  a  "feel  r a n k e d t h e p r o j e c t on t h e b a s i s  criteria".  75  of  T a b l e Q, S t a t e m e n t s by t h e Question judge.  asked  o f each  (1) How d i d you come t o your judgement of this project?  Judge's  Judges Statements  Judge A - [ T h i s p r o j e c t ] took a d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h [ f r o m many o f t h e o t h e r p r o j e c t s ] which was b a s i c a l l y d o i n g an experiment and s e t t i n g up a h y p o t h e s i s . Judge B - I t h o u g h t t h i s was a terribly competent j o b . I f she had c o n c e i v e d i t i n a l l h e r s e l f , done t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n , worried about a l l the details...she had c e r t a i n l y done a [ r e m a r k a b l e ] j o b . Judge C - I d i d not use the formal structure provided. I u s e d my own gut f e e l i n g , o k a y ? . . . t h e number [ o f p r o j e c t s ] I was l o o k i n g a t r e a l l y a l l o w e d me t o f e e l that I had t h e f e e l f o r t h e w h o l e group. ...I was a p p l y i n g my own criteria, but not the paper s t r u c t u r e p r o v i d e d .  (2) How i m p o r t a n t was the i n t e r v i e w making up y o u r m i n d ?  Judge A - [The j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n ] was very important. The i n f o r m a t i o n [ s h o u l d ] come o u t i n t h e i r v e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n . Judge B - The i n t e r v i e w i s the most important [ p a r t of the p r o j e c t ] , I tend to judge t h e p a r t i c i p a n t more than the exhibit. I f the p a r t i c i p a n t [ i s ] i n v o l v e d w i t h and i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e exhibit, that i s important. Judge C - The i n t e r v i e w was i m p o r t a n t . . . I don't even recall seeing her written report. ...the b a c k b o a r d s d o n ' t do much f o r me.  (3) D i d you the p r o j e c t ?  preview  Judge A - Yes I went a r o u n d and l o o k e d a t the 8 or so [ p r o j e c t s ] I was going to judge. I went and had a quick look ...then I went back and quickly read through t h e i r n o t e s t h a t we were g i v e n i n their p a c k a g e s so I c o u l d have some idea w h a t i t was t h e y were g o i n g t o do. Judge B - No. ceremony.  76  I was  in  the  welcoming  T a b l e 9. S t a t e m e n t s by t h e J u d g e s ( C o n t i n u e d ) Q u e s t i o n asked o f each judge.  Judge's Statements Judge really  (4) Were y o u comparing t h i s p r o j e c t t o o t h e r p r o j e c t s you have s e e n ? Were t h e s e p r o j e c t s i n t h e same category? (Looking f o r r e l a t i v e or absolute standards)  C - I s t r o l l e d the a i s l e , didn't look i n d e t a i l .  but  Judge A - Y e s , e v e n t u a l l y ! Of c o u r s e I did. But a t t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t , s i n c e she was my f i r s t s t u d e n t I w a s n ' t really comparing. . . . [ I compare them] on t h e basis o f t h e [ p r o j e c t s ] t h a t we have g o t . I [ d o n ' t ] worry about p r e v i o u s years or anything. Judge B - No. I was o n l y c o m p a r i n g t h e two actually. [The f i r s t two projects] were clearly b e t t e r i n my mind b e f o r e I went t h r o u g h t h e j u d g i n g d y n a m i c w i t h t h e o t h e r j u d g e s . ...These 8 p r o j e c t s were t h e o n l y p r o j e c t s on my m i n d . Judge C - Y e s . I j u d g e d them a g a i n s t one another. I n t h e b a c k o f my mind t h e r e i s some s o r t o f e x t e r n a l s t a n d a r d a s w e l l , I need t o s e e s o m e t h i n g o f q u a l i t y t h e r e .  (5) Were y o u c o n f i r m i n g a judgement or m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t ?  Judge A - No [ I was m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t ] , but I use t h e p r o j e c t n o t e s i n a sense to think about some o f t h e kinds of questions I might ask [during the judging conversation]. Judge B - I think [ I was m a k i n g a judgment], because I t h i n k ...probably her e x h i b i t was t h e most a p p e a l i n g i f n o t t h e best. Judge basis  C - I was m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t on [of the judging c o n v e r s a t i o n ] .  77  the  T a b l e Q_ S t a t e m e n t s by t h e J u d g e s Q u e s t i o n asked o f each judge. (6) Were y o u u s i n g pre s e t f o r m a t f o r your q u e s t i o n i n g ?  a  (Continued)  Judge's Statements Judge A - No, I don't. I think I generally start o f fwith, "Would y o u t e l l me about your p r o j e c t " , or something as general as t h a t t o g e t them g o i n g . I do then t r y t o f o l l o w t h e i r own leads—what t h e y b r i n g up. . . . I do l i k e t o f i n d o u t where the idea came f r o m ...what t h e project p r o b l e m was . . . c h e c k t h e r e s u l t s , controls, and a c c u r a c y . Sometimes what a r e t h e e x t e n s i o n s ...how w o u l d t h e y a p p l y it? Can t h e y a n s w e r a "what i f " q u e s t i o n ? Can they apply t h e i n f o r m a t i o n they have accumulated? . . . I do t r y t o f o l l o w t h e i r own c o n v e r s a t i o n a s much as p o s s i b l e so i t i s n o t an i n q u i s i t i o n . J u d g e B - No, c e r t a i n l y n o t . . . . I s i m p l y go i n and say I'm g o i n g t o i n t e r a c t with this k i d and f i n d o u t how good a k i d t h i s is. Remember I am j u d g i n g a k i d . The s u b j e c t we're t a l k i n g a b o u t i s t h e e x h i b i t at hand and that is a focus. Judge C - No I really didn't. Although, t h e r e was a f o r m a t o v e r a l l i t wasn't anything I consciously worked out. B u t I know t h a t i n e a c h c a s e I t h i n k I probably followed a sequence: the student t r i e d t o describe the experiment ...I asked them a b o u t t h e r e s u l t s . . . a n d controls. I t ' s t h e same c l a s s i c things that are involved i n any l a b report r e a l l y , t h e same s e q u e n c e .  (7) D i d you use the judging c r i t e r i a p r o v i d e d by t h e organizers? Why/why n o t ?  Judge A - Y e s . They were t h e g u i d e l i n e s . I t r y t o use t h e c r i t e r i a [ p r o v i d e d by t h e Y.S.F.] s p e c i f i e d h e r e , but I don't find it possible t o put i n a numerical mark b e s i d e e a c h o n e . I c a n ' t do t h a t . Judge B - No. I am u n a b l e t o w o r k with those [judging c r i t e r i a ] . I don't b e l i e v e the k i d s w i l l work t o them and t h a t was verified. Y o u ' l l f i n d t h e k i d s d i d n ' t pay any a t t e n t i o n t o t h o s e c r i t e r i a a t a l l and so I didn't use them. ...Objective c r i t e r i a a r e v e r y h a r d t o come by. 78  T a b l e 3. S t a t e m e n t s by t h e J u d g e s ( C o n t i n u e d ) Q u e s t i o n asked o f each judge.  Judge's Statements Judge C - I m i g h t have t r i e d t o use them but I w o u l d have been f r u s t r a t e d because there i s such d i f f e r e n c e s i n [ t h e types of projects]. What we were looking at didn't f i t the c r i t e r i a .  (8) How do y o u v i e w your judgement o f t h e p r o j e c t now?  Judge A - I s t i l l t h i n k t h a t where we p u t her was t h e a p p r o p r i a t e place. We a l l thought these two [ f i r s t and s e c o n d ] p r o j e c t s were t h e b e s t . Judge B - I'm s a t i s f i e d . . . t o p two r i g h t .  we p i c k e d  the  Judge C - I t i s s u r p r i s i n g t h a t I f e l t as good about t h e p r o j e c t as I d i d and I t h i n k t h a t t h e answer i s I s t i l l l i k e good science whether the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s as clear as i t m i g h t b e . . . . I t h i n k i t was probably the r i g h t d e c i s i o n .  79  J u d g e A was  the only  judging c r i t e r i a 7).  Both  provided  were  and  C b e l i e v e d t h e r e was  beside  t o t h e use of the  little  Even  Judge A d i d  the j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a .  o f t h e Y.S.F.'s j u d g i n g  i m p o r t a n c e compared t o t h e  the  the  in  of  student's  j u d g m e n t was  Junior  Physical  compared t h i s  worth  in  criteria  not  criteria  place  or  a was  to  project.  in a  the  interview in assessing  The  c o n c l u s i o n on t h e  based s o l e l y Category  on  similar  written material  judges  gave  t o the r e s u l t s of the c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h  coming t o a f i n a l  This  and  exhibit.  were o f m i n i m a l  consideration  3  L i t t l e value  A l l j u d g e s t h o u g h t t h e b a c k b o a r d s and  value  the  questions  Each judge responded t o a l l the o t h e r q u e s t i o n s fashion.  use  were adamant t h a t t h e j u d g i n g  inappropriate.  mark  attached  B  t h e e x h i b i t and  t h e Y.S.F. ( T a b l e 9,  by  t h e e x h i b i t and  numerical  preview  provided  Judge  previewing  judge to preview  r a n k i n g of  the  the  student project.  the 8 p r o j e c t s entered  a t t h e V.S.F.  p r o j e c t t o p r o j e c t s they  None  had  prime  of  in  the  seen from o t h e r  the  judges years.  However, Judge B m e n t i o n e d i n t h e i n t e r v i e w t h a t t h e r a n k i n g o f a project type  in  of p r o j e c t at a previous  9  Table student felt  was  they  though they it  h i s c a s e m i g h t be  existed  a f f e c t e d i f he had science  u s e d by  probably  any  was  for  of the j u d g e s .  questioning But  both  f o l l o w e d a sequence f o r each  were unaware t h e  sequence e x i s t e d .  u n i n t e n t i o n a l and 80  the  same  fair.  a l s o shows a p r e - s e t f o r m a t not  seen  not  The  consciously  the  J u d g e A and  project  even  sequence  if  worked  out  C  according  t o the judges.  conversation  Judge B saw no s e q u e n c e i n h i s j u d g i n g  and made c l e a r  a l l he d i d was t o " i n t e r a c t " w i t h t h e  student.  All  three  interview with two  judges  were s a t i s f i e d  at the conclusion  t h e i r judgment o f the p r o j e c t .  p r o j e c t s were c o r r e c t l y  They f e l t  o f t h e Y.S.F.*s j u d g i n g  exhibit, their  the  judgment  criteria,  the value  importance of the i n t e r v i e w , are  thetop  picked.  T a b l e 9 shows t h e j u d g e s had many s i m i l a r i t i e s . use  of the  a few o f t h e t o p i c s  The  of previewing the  and how t h e y to  judges'  which  each  came t o judge  responded.  The science  " s t y l e " with which judges a d j u d i c a t e d fair  examined. perspective  project,  based  on t h e d a t a  An a n a l y s i s o f t h e j u d g e s ' of judging  to the judging  and how t h e y  conversation.  81  the  experimental  collected  here,  is  " s t y l e " reveals the judges' applied their  understanding  A P e s c r i p t i o n ol  Each J u d g e ' s  Upon c o m p l e t i o n it  was  which  o f t h e j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s and  c l e a r c o n s i d e r a b l e amounts o f d a t a could  From  stvie  be u s e d t o a d d r e s s  these  data  the  3l  IHJ&  B had  J u d g e A and  reinitiations, their  judges  B had  the  judges  style. as  follow-ups,  i n their judging  from the j u d g i n g r e v e a l e d these  they  and  conversations  of  initiations,  number o f r e q u e s t  sequences  j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h t h e same s t u d e n t . utterances  by b o t h  judges  were  intent  on  initiating  a topic  average  number  than  s h o w i n g t h a t few  5, one  topic.  characteristic  of u t t e r a n c e s  The  i n any  in following request  of the r e q u e s t  Judge A's  82  and  t h i r d of  New  request  B seemed a  more  topic.  sequence  was  s e q u e n c e s was  J u d g e B's  in  One  u t t e r a n c e s w e r e made by e i t h e r  brevity  of both  initiations.  so J u d g e s A and  than  style.  similarities.  a s i m i l a r percentage  s e q u e n c e s began w i t h an i n i t i a t i o n  any  judging  formulated.  obtained  i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e two  Both  the  by  many s i m i l a r i t i e s  c l o s e l o o k a t the data  and  used  collected  a Kind Judge A and  A  been  the q u e s t i o n of  "styles"  i n t e r v i e w e d the s t u d e n t were  had  interview  The less  judge  on  a major  conversation.  Judge order.  A and B l o o k e d  First,  both  asking the student judges of  next  judges  j u d g e s began t h e i r j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s by  sequence asked t h e s t u d e n t s  At l e a s t 4 d i f f e r e n t  judge  until  asked  late  about  the  utterances  as  revealed e a r l i e r  utterances  and  criteria.  From  these  data  was e s t a b l i s h e d . of a similar  Another  these  7.  order  similarity  to lead.  three c r i t e r i a  Judge  A  and  both  project.  The  frequency  same a s p e c t  of  Judge  A's three  in  evaluating  the s t y l e o f both  A a  judges  and e m p h a s i s on c r i t e r i a .  few o c c a s i o n s  conversations  on w h i c h t h e s t u d e n t  20% o f a l l t h e u t t e r a n c e s  two j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s were s t u d e n t  looking at this  when  63% o f  between t h e j u d g i n g  Less than  by  and f r o m t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h Judge  Therefore,  Judge A and B was t h e v e r y allowed  i n Table  "care  58% o f Judge B's u t t e r a n c e s were on t h e s e  the importance o f these  consisted  the  3 t o p i c s was r e v e a l e d by t h e  these  project  of  The  pursued  conversation  "originality"  of  B  about the  t o p i c s were t h e n  i n the judging  importance  and  same  t o describe the "parts of the experiment".  request  design".  each  f o r t h e same t h r e e t o p i c s i n t h e  led.  of was  i n each o f  A n o t h e r way o f  o f t h e j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n was  B l e d t h e j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n 80%  of  the  that time.  Additionally,  7%  first  s e q u e n c e where t h e j u d g e s l e a r n e d t h e p a r t s o f t h e  request  experiment. the  of the student  Both judges suggested  p a r t s o f the p r o j e c t ,  researcher, Because  was  Judge  to A  l e d utterances  occurred  i n the  t h e b e s t way f o r them t o l e a r n  as i n d i c a t e d i n t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e  have a v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n by  and B l e d so much 83  of  the  the  student.  conversation  they  determined request  what t o p i c s were i n i t i a t e d ,  s t y l e was  B used a s i m i l a r  s t y l e c o n s i s t e d of at l e a s t t h a n 20%  of the time,  and  the j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n .  over style  each  sequence.  30%  The  B's  and  judging  the s t u d e n t l e d l e s s  controlled  particular  The  of i n i t i a t i o n s  Judge A and  initiations,  each judge  judging.  style  the d i r e c t i o n adopted  of  by  these  d e p e n d e d on t h e d o m i n a n c e i n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n o f t h e  judge  t h e s t u d e n t , h e n c e , t h e r e s e a r c h e r r e f e r s t o J u d g e A and as t h a t o f an  From both  " s t y l e " of  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e h i g h p e r c e n t a g e  l e n g t h of each r e q u e s t  judges  the d u r a t i o n of  sequence.  Thus J u d g e A and  short  and  statements  Judges  designed  A  to test  and  B's  "interrogator".  made i n t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h B were c o n s c i o u s t h a t t h e i r  the s t u d e n t ' s  the  researcher  questions  were  knowledge:  Judge A - I do l i k e to f i n d out where the idea came f r o m . . . [ a n d ] . . . check the r e s u l t s , check the c o n t r o l s , [and] check the accuracy. S o m e t i m e s , what a r e t h e e x t e n s i o n s , . . . where w o u l d you go f r o m t h e r e ? How w o u l d you a p p l y i t ? . . . see i f t h e y can a n s w e r a "what i f q u e s t i o n " . Can t h e y a p p l y the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e y have a c c u m u l a t e d ? Questions of that sort."  84  Odd  Man  Out  Judge Table 33%  C  d i d n o t have t h e same s t y l e  2 showed  as an  46% o f Judge C's u t t e r a n c e s  were q u e s t i o n s .  from e i t h e r of  A very  the other  different  judges.  were  "interrogator". statements  proportion of  utterances  Judge C's c o n v e r s a t i o n  distinguished  f r o m J u d g e A and B by t h e l a r g e number o f  (59%)  the student  which  Figure 4:3). that  Judge  judging of  The C  preponderance of student  was l e d by t h e s t u d e n t  conversation.  a "follower".  student the  judging should  to  occasions  (See T a b l e  initiated  f o r the  i s best  2  talk  majority  of  conversation  l e a d f o r the d u r a t i o n or at l e a s t  conversation.  Judge C was  aware he i n t e n d e d  and  part the  the style  " F o l l o w e r s " hand t h e r e i n s o f c o n t r o l t o of the j u d g i n g  and  showed  Judge C t h e r e f o r e seemed t o have t h e  at the beginning  student  l e d the conversation  and  the  expect of  the  student  lead:  ...a l o t o f t h e k i d s j u s t t u r n on t h e t a p e recorder and away they go ...you could t e l l that they memorized a [speech], ...For some r e a s o n or o t h e r she chopped and rambled. She d i d n ' t have t h a t s o r t o f s e t l e t i t go k i n d o f starting. ...I [still] wanted t o h e a r h e r presentation, [though].  Judge  C  students it  explained  t h a t he b e l i e v e d i t was  to discuss their  i n t h e i r own  project with  way.  85  important  t h e j u d g e and t o  for  the  present  As  4:3  Figure #43  graphs),  (originality) different  shows,  (results), initiated  conversation.  allowed  the student  judge confirmed  student  #52  #28 ( e x p l a n a t i o n  (care  four request  from the student  judging  the  utterances  of  #57  s e q u e n c e s w h i c h were  very  l e d sequences a t the beginning  This  the  four  of  the  p a t t e r n would s u g g e s t t h a t Judge  t o lead the conversation i n the i n t e r v i e w ,  request  the  and  t o answer s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s .  initiated  design),  of  sequences  initially  C  b u t , as  he e v e n t u a l l y wanted  the  Judge C e x p l a i n e d why he later  in  the  judging  conversation:  I was c o n s c i o u s t h a t t h i s [ w a s ] r e a l l y t h e good p a r t o f t h e experiment o r one i n w h i c h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r [ h a d ] a good opportunity t o show u n d e r s t a n d i n g . I mean there [were] certain p o i n t s i n some o f t h e s e [ c o n v e r s a t i o n s ] where you [could] really apply a k n i f e t o see i f t h e k i d r e a l l y [understood] t h e i d e a or n o t . In these  request  s e q u e n c e s t h e s t y l e Judge C u s e d was t h a t o f  an  "interrogator".  Judge and  C  a l s o e m p h a s i z e d 3 o f t h e same c r i t e r i a  B (Table 7 ) .  about  A majority  ( 5 7 % ) o f J u d g e C's u t t e r a n c e s  the parts of the experiment,  originality  of the p r o j e c t .  J u d g e A and B's u t t e r a n c e s  the care  of design,  A  were  and t h e  As m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y , o v e r 50% o f w e r e on t h e same 3 t o p i c s .  j u d g e s e m p h a s i z e d t h e same t o p i c and t h a t t h e y questions  as J u d g e  That the 3  a l l asked  specific  showed J u d g e C's c o n c e r n s w e r e n o t i d i o s y n c r a t i c .  86  Judge  A,  interview judging  He he  projects set  with  the  C made many s i m i l a r  researcher  was  (Table  was " i m p o r t a n t "  also concurred  with  comparing the p r o j e c t  forquestioning.  9).  Judge  and h e l p e d  conversation  on  "Insulation"  Judge C,  many o f  understood".  conversation.  he w a n t e d  Therefore,  Judge  style  t o f i t the a n t i c i p a t e d outcomes.  judge a t l e a s t  judge's  was a d j u d i c a t e d  interaction  The with  the  same in  the student t o  student  The j u d g e was a b l e  p a r t o f each j u d g i n g  "interrogation".  other  "really  C's s t y l e c o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d as  of a " s t y l e changer" i . e .  the student  B  However, he was an  t o know i f t h e  that  Although  the  the student.  l e a d many p a r t s o f t h e j u d g i n g when  to  techniques  when he was t h e " f o l l o w e r " , a l l o w e d  "interrogator"  felt  and t h a t he was n o t u s i n g a p r e Judge C s h a r e d  with  C  their  h i m make up h i s  as J u d g e A and B and t h e r e f o r e u s e d s i m i l a r  his judging  an  statements i n  s t a t e m e n t s made by Judge A and  i n t h e same c a t e g o r y ,  format  ideas  and  conversation  mind. that  B,  style the  individually  conversation describes student.  t o adapt  the  by  his  each  was c o n d u c t e d a s nature  of the  three  styles  The  "interrogator",  " f o l l o w e r " , and " s t y l e c h a n g e r " were u s e d by t h e  3 j u d g e s as they  adjudicated  the student's  87  project.  R e f l e c t i o n s OR S t y l e s  When  other  described even  may  data  are  have been l i t t l e  though  the  last  A  and  contrasted differences previously handled  similar  Judge C.  However,  the  judging  " I n s u l a t i o n " i n very All  used  judging  conversation different  when  and  one  word  conversation  Judge  were  with  that i n with  conversation. compared  the  the exception  of  fact  each  the student  i n the percentage of questions  and  ways.  conversation  with  the  were a m i n i m a l p a r t  of  student.  4 5 % o f Judge Statements  the  judging  a s c o n d u c t e d by Judge A.  therefore,  did stick closely  t o the s t y l e  "interrogator"  throughout  the conversation  with  student  judge on  A,  However,  and  of  33% o f Judge C's u t t e r a n c e s .  utterances  a l l  project  i n the judging  and o n l y  wind",  a c l o s e r examination  Q u e s t i o n s a c c o u n t e d f o r 7 0 % o f J u d g e A*s u t t e r a n c e s , B's u t t e r a n c e s ,  styles  i n the  judges  especially  commonalities,  three judges d i f f e r e d  statements  showed  between each judge r e v e a l e d , mentioned  3  part of t h e i r judging  B were v e r y  to  the  more t h a n " s t r a w s  section  "interrogators" f o r at least Judge  emphasized  Judge f o r two  A  did  the  not c o r r e c t erroneous responses  reasons:  88  of  an  student. by  the  One, i f I am t h e f i r s t one t h r o u g h and I c o r r e c t them ... the n e x t two j u d g e s g e t t h e r i g h t a n s w e r s ! I don't think t h a t i s r e a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e . Two, t h e y p u t a l o t o f work i n t o [ t h e p r o j e c t ] and t h e y a r e q u i t e p r o u d o f i t and i f I start criticizing, [by s a y i n g ] " W e l l , t h i s i s wrong...", I t h i n k that's kind of defeating.  Judge  B  and C u s e d q u e s t i o n s ,  statements  u t t e r a n c e s i n a way t h a t was d i f f e r e n t f r o m Judge combined to  with  a difficult  topic.  For  the student one  request  during the experiment:  Yes...  ( 3 3 ) . . . t h e w a t e r was e v a p o r a t i n g a l l time? S-  QUESTION  judges  ( 3 2 ) J - K e e p i n g c o n d i t i o n s t h e same . . . i s very i m p o r t a n t i n s c i e n c e so y o u a l w a y s want to... realize what i t i s y o u a r e m e a s u r i n g , ( p a u s e ) T h e r e i s one t h i n g t h a t you m i g h t n o t h a v e t h o u g h t a b o u t . (pause) When t h e f a b r i c was w e t . . . ( p a u s e ) S-  QUESTION  example,  word  i n t h e j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Judge B c e n t e r e d on t h e  e v a p o r a t i o n o f water from the m a t e r i a l  STATEMENT  one  A. These  t h e d i f f e r e n t u t t e r a n c e s as t h e y e n c o u r a g e d  grapple  sequence  and  Yes.  the  That i s r i g h t .  (34) So t h e c o n d i t i o n was r e a l l y a l l the time?  changing  S- I g u e s s i t was... b u t s i n c e i t was 20 minutes I didn't think that i t would e v a p o r a t e t o o much. QUESTION  ( 3 5 ) J - No? finished? Sthe  ONE WORD UTTERANCE  Y e s i t was. same.  (36) J S-  It  Yeh.  But  that 89  was  still  wet  I t was s t i l l  when  you  more o r l e s s  Mmm-mm. was  probably  because  i t  was... ONE WORD UTTERANCE  Judge  B  (37)J-  So...  S...totally totally wet.  confirmed  i n t e r v i e w with  the  the  soaked  purpose behind  this  i t so t h a t i t  sequence  was  during  the  researcher:  [ I was w o n d e r i n g ] i f she [ t h e s t u d e n t ] had any s p e c u l a t i o n s . I w o u l d h a v e t o l d h e r a b o u t s t e a d y s t a t e i f she was i n c l i n e d at a l l t o go i n t o i t . You know, i f she said, "I never t h o u g h t a b o u t t h a t ? " o r "what c o u l d do t h a t ? " . I f she w o u l d h a v e a s k e d a q u e s t i o n , I w o u l d have a n s w e r e d .  From  the  utterances,  student  Judge  speculations  on  B  the  r e s p o n s e s t o the concluded  care  the  of design  combination  student  criterion  of  did  different  not  have  any  t h a t concerned  the  wetness o f the m a t e r i a l .  Judge B and comments on how  C are  a subject  similar  as e x e m p l i f i e d  Judge B d i s s e m i n a t e d  of h i s j u d g i n g QUESTION  i n one  o t h e r way. by  Judge B.  One  add  example  i n f o r m a t i o n i s found i n u t t e r a n c e  of  #15  conversation: ( 1 4 ) J - How much body g i v e s o f f ?  power do  SI wouldn't r e a l l y g u e s s a b o u t 40 W a t t s ? STATEMENT  Both judges  know,  you  think  but  I  your would  (15)JThat's a pretty good guess, actually. You put o u t as much as a l i g h t bulb. I put o u t more l i k e a 100 W a t t l i g h t bulb and you put o u t more l i k e a 40 Watt l i g h t bulb. B e c a u s e I am b i g g e r .  90  In  this  instance  student Watt  with  light  Judge  A  t h e judge used t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n  information bulb  as  the  t h a t m i g h t h e l p h e r u n d e r s t a n d why a 40  was a good p a r t o f  explained  to provide  the  experimental  p r e v i o u s l y n e v e r made  comments  design. of  this  nature.  Judge the  other  tended  B c h a n g e d t h e t o p i c on more o c c a s i o n s judges.  The r e q u e s t  t o be s h o r t u n l e s s  s e q u e n c e s on e a c h t o p i c  the student  or d i d n o t understand a p a r t i c u l a r thirteen consisted request explained did  request  sequences  than e i t h e r  asked f o r a  utterance  i n J u d g e B's  occurred  when  the  Thus, similarities  each  clarification  conversation  judge  what he meant by h i s u t t e r a n c e s .  the student  therefore  by t h e j u d g e . Of t h e  o f more t h a n f o u r j u d g e ' s u t t e r a n c e s . sequences  of  only  2  Both o f  these  elaborated  and  On o n l y  5  occasions  lead the conversation. judge's  existed  style  between a l l 3  91  was  unique  judges.  even  though  some  Chapter  5.  O v e r v i e w JQ£ t h e S t u d y  This  study  experimental judging  science f a i r  conversation.  conversations with it  and  with  what  judges  looked  f o r i n an  p r o j e c t and how t h e j u d g e s Audio-recordings  t h e same s t u d e n t  of  conducted  three  and an i n d e p t h  each judge p r o v i d e d t h e d a t a base f o r t h i s was n o t known a t t h e o u t s e t what t y p e  derived data  investigated  study.  a  judges' interview Although  o f i n f o r m a t i o n would  be  f r o m t h e j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s i t was assumed t h a t  this  base w o u l d p r o v i d e v a l u a b l e i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e j u d g i n g  task  reveal  important  some  of the aspects  that  these  judges  felt  were  i n evaluating a science f a i r project.  Conclusions and I m p l i c a t i o n s  For presented statements this  this  study  i n Chapter  several 1.  are presented  hypotheses  In this  section  along with  study:  92  were these  addressed  as  propositional  the c o n c l u s i o n s reached  in  will  Hypothesis  1.  be u t i l i z e d  i n ranking the student's project.  Only the  Judge A l o o k e d  written  done, also  The w r i t t e n summary and p r o j e c t  a t t h e w r i t t e n summary.  [ o r ] what t h e y  t h i n k they  have done".  However,  have  Judge  A  b e l i e v e d t h a t a w r i t t e n summary c o u l d h a v e been p r o d u c e d by than  Judge A s o l e l y  t o make i t e a s i e r t o a s k q u e s t i o n s .  nor C looked  that  Judge A f o u n d  summary gave an " i d e a o f what i t i s t h a t t h e y  some one o t h e r  B  backboards  their  the student.  The w r i t t e n r e p o r t was u s e d by  a t t h e w r i t t e n summary.  t i m e was b e t t e r s p e n t  student.  A l l three  questions  about  judges  Both  Neither  Judge  judges  felt  these  interacting verbally  used t h e  backboards  to  with  the  initiate  the project during t h e i r conversation with  the  student.  (1) to  A l l three judges  used t h e e x h i b i t  and  backboards  help focus the judging conversation.  Hypothesis student w i l l Table  2.  The j u d g e s '  be i m p o r t a n t  9 (p.  conversations  i n ranking the student's project.  ) showed s t a t e m e n t s  i n t e r v i e w with the researcher.  made by e a c h j u d g e i n t h e  A l l three judges  j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n was "most i m p o r t a n t " , "important"  in  (interview) with a  determining  "very  the ranking of  93  the  stated that the i m p o r t a n t " , and project.  (2)  The  important  i n ranking  Hypothesis  3..  the Youth Science  "tried a "I  Y.S.F.  t o use  numerical don't l i k e  the  the  conversation student's  Judges w i l l  Foundation,  Mainland) Regional  The  judging  Science  beside this  students  those  u s e d by  provided  the Vancouver  but  u s e d by  the judges.  [found] i t impossible  e a c h one."  C expressed  similar  by  (Lower  kind of s c a l e " .  sentiments  Judge A t o put  F u r t h e r m o r e she Judge B  in  added,  stated:  I am u n a b l e t o work w i t h t h o s e [ j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a ] . believe the k i d s w i l l work t o them and t h a t was You'll find the k i d s d i d n ' t pay any attention c r i t e r i a a t a l l and so I d i d n ' t use them.  Judge  was  project.  f o l l o w the c r i t e r i a  were n o t  criteria...  t o use  a  Fair.  criteria  mark  with  in his interview  I don't verified. to those  with  the  researcher:  I w o u l d h a v e been f r u s t r a t e d [ i f I had t r i e d t o use them] because there i s such differences in [the types of projects]. What we were l o o k i n g a t d i d n ' t f i t t h e c r i t e r i a .  None  of the 3 judges used the j u d g i n g  t h e Y.S.F. However, Judge A e x p l a i n e d she "they  later  criteria i n the  a t t e m p t e d t o f o l l o w t h e Y.S.F.'s c r i t e r i a were t h e g u i d e l i n e s " w i t h w h i c h she  of the other  j u d g e s used the  criteria.  94  was  provided  interview  initially provided.  by that  because Neither  All design,  3  judges  originality,  three  topics  conversations  were  the  their  Judge  was  4.  a teacher's  by  A  and  follow  and  is  judging  B initiated  topics,  by  care  response,  request  and  each  Each The  sequences initiation  student's  Sinclair and  and  and  in was  response Coulthard  feedback  (follow-  in this  teaching conversations  95  be  style.  student.  4:3).  of in  students w i l l  i n the classroom  a l l of the  the  parallel  provided  student.  exchange i n the c l a s s r o o m "  judging conversations 4:2,  the  feedback from the judge.  a "typical  judging  the p a r t s of the experiment,  conversation  with  These  the  the c r i t e r i a  a r e s p o n s e from the s t u d e n t .  f o l l o w e d by  in  of  judges.  (1975) b e l i e v e d t h a t i n i t i a t i o n , up)  recurrent  d i d emphasize three  have a p e r s o n a l  care  experiment.  Judges' c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h  conversations  followed  and  judging conversation with  to  judge w i l l  Judges  the t o p i c s of  the p a r t s of the  common  originality,  Hypothesis similar  ( T a b l e 7)  Judges d i d not  Y.S.F.  design,  and  of a l l t h r e e  (3)  their  emphasized  (Figs.  study 4:1,  A judge's conversation with a student i s s i m i l a r  (4) to  a  teacher's conversations with  that  there  is  an i n i t i a t i o n  by  a student i n a the  judge,  classroom  response  in  by  the  s t u d e n t , and f e e d b a c k ( f o l l o w - u p ) by t h e j u d g e .  However e a c h j u d g e ' s p e r s o n a l though  some s i m i l a r i t i e s  existed  j u d g i n g s t y l e was  unique  between a l l 3 j u d g e s .  Similar  a s p e c t s o f e a c h j u d g i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n w e r e used b u t f o r a of  different  judging  r e a s o n s by e a c h j u d g e .  conversation  conversation  in  his  j u d g e s and e s p e c i a l l y Y.S.F..  Judge  identical. emphasis  showed  A  For  each  o r h e r own  The judge  way  differences  independent of the c r i t e r i a  and  in in  the  the other  p r o v i d e d by  but they  the not  t h e " s t y l e s " o f e a c h j u d g e t o be i d e n t i c a l  the  made t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r  styles  of  each  were  on c r i t e r i a ,  B had s i m i l a r  variety  participated  independent  even  the order of c r i t e r i a , i n the i n t e r v i e w would  and t h e s t a t e m e n t s a l l have t o be  the  same.  (5) Interrogator,  Each  j u d g e had a u n i q u e  follower,  "style"  of  judging.  and s t y l e c h a n g e r w e r e i d e n t i f i e d  judging  styles.  at l e a s t  p a r t of the j u d g i n g  as  Each j u d g e a c t e d as an " i n t e r r o g a t o r " f o r  96  conversation.  Recommendations  must be j u d i c i o u s when m a k i n g r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a s o n l y 3  One judges  provided  the  data  for  this  study.  Nevertheless,  f o l l o w i n g recommendations were d e r i v e d from the  (1) in  R  Information s e n t  science  conversation sent  fair  should  i n the  t o students s t r e s s the  ranking  backboards,  written  presentation)  (2)  crucial  Fair  students.  should  The c u r r e n t  suggest a l l  final  aspects,  conversation  placement o f the  g u i d e l i n e s are based  students  t o i n c o r p o r a t e the  design",  and " o r i g i n a l i t y " i n t o t h e i r  on  97  Regional  Judges a n d t h e Y.S.F.'s  encourage j u d g e s and  " p a r t s o f the e x p e r i m e n t " , judging  (oral  project.  F o u n d a t i o n and t h e V a n c o u v e r  The new g u i d e l i n e s s h o u l d  judging  guidelines  three  develop r e v i s e d g u i d e l i n e s f o r  The c u r r e n t  criteria.  importance o f the  and j u d g i n g  t o the  The Y o u t h S c i e n c e  Science  judging  are  summary,  conclusions:  who intend £ o p a r t i c i p a t e  of a project.  t o p a r t i c i p a n t s a t t h e V.S.F.  the  "care  conversation.  of  Suggestions The  fj2T_ F u r t h e r  following  directly  from  the  ,1'udges s e v e r a l sciences. judge's  (2) life be  .judge  study  across  Judges  sciences, studied.  of  provide data  varying  exhibits.  engineering of  may  use  identify  the  important  use  project's  (3)  studied  projects sciences,  projects  different  of  in conversation with  same  and  the  emerge  of  e.g.  she life  such  sciences  based  student's  or_  s t a b i l i t y of  request  a student  he  categories  computer are  as  category  about  which  a  in detail  i n other  topics  areas  research  study:  would  sciences  judges  this  future  e x h i b i t s i n the  science  Judges  for  s h o u l d be  different  This  style  suggestions  conclusions of  One  ( 1)  Research  on  as.  should  different  sequences  project.  may be  a  to  Topics  unique  to  a  category.  How j u d g e s  be  studied.  how  judges  While  judge,  it  determine the  the  present  d i d not  rank  study  address  98  order  o£ a project  should  r e v e a l e d much o f what  this  important  problem.  and  CJ.QSJ.ng Comments  In  this  study  the researcher described the adjudication  one p r o j e c t a t t h e V.S.F. by t h r e e d i f f e r e n t j u d g e s . j u d g e s l o o k e d f o r as t h e y how  they  adjudicated a science f a i r  looked f o r these  i s t h e hope o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r  in  showing t h a t each judge's s t y l e  the  final  direction science  ranking to  of  a  What t o p i c s project  t o p i c s was d e t e r m i n e d i n t h i s  It  that this  study  i s important  p r o j e c t and t h a t  will in  fairs.  99  and  study.  be o f  use  determining  i t will  t h e t h i n k i n g and method o f a l l t h o s e  of  give  involved  new in  Bibliography Bloom, B.S. (1954). The thought processes of students in discussion. In S.G. French ( e d . ) . A c c e n t on teaching: e x p e r i m e n t s i n g e n e r a l e d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : H a r p e r . Canada Wide S c i e n c e F a i r . (1986). D i s c u s s i o n p a p e r on c a t e g o r y review f o r t h e Canada Wide S c i e n c e F a i r . Paper resulting from a meeting o£ t h e C a t e g o r y Review Committee at the Canada Wide S c i e n c e F a i r , C a l g a r y , A l t a . Finley, F.N. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Science processes. S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g , £0.( 1 ) , 4 7 - 5 4 . Gagne, R.M. (1965). process approach. Hamrick, L., parents.  J o u r n a l of Research  The p s y c h o l o g i c a l b a s i s of science- A AAAS m i s c e l l a n e o u s p u b l i c a t i o n , 6 5 - 6 8 .  and H a r t y , H. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Science f a i r s : S c i e n c e and C h i l d r e n , £ 0 ( 5 ) , 2 3 - 2 5 .  Gaier, E.L. (1954). stimulated r e c a l l . 147-153.  A  A primer f o r  study o f memory u n d e r c o n d i t i o n s o f The J o u r n a l o f G e n e r a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5J2,  H e d g e s , H.G., Popp, L.A., and R o b i n s o n , F.G. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . a Better Science Fair. O r b i t 2 2 , 5.(2), 8-9. Helm,  in  How  t o have  N. (1972, April). Youth S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n Appendix J . Letter written t o t h e B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s by the Chairman r e v i e w i n g t h e y e a r s 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 2 , O t t a w a , Ont.  Lagueux, B.J., F a i r e r . The  and A m o l s , H.I. Science Teacher.  ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Make y o u r 53.(2), 2 4 - 2 8 .  Science  M a r l a n d , P.W. (1977). A study of t e a c h e r s ' i n t e r a c t i v e Unpublished doctoral dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y of Edmonton.  Fair  thoughts. Alberta,  M c B u r n e y , W.F. (1978). The science f a i r : a c r i t i q u e and some suggestions. The A m e r i c a n B i o l o g y T e a c h e r . iL0_(7), 41 9-422. McHoul, A. (1978). The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t u r n s a t f o r m a l t a l k i n the classroom. Language i n S o c i e t y . X, 1 8 3 - 2 1 3 . McTear, M. (1985). Blackwell.  Children's  conversation.  Oxford:  Basil  Ovian, L.J. (1971). The c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f s c i e n c e f a i r s i n t h e S e c o n d a r y Schools of the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic U n i v e r s i t y of America. Paldy, L.G. (1971). P h v s i c s Teacher.  S c i e n c e F a i r s - In the s p i r i t of s c i e n c e ? .9,( 8 ) , 4 2 7 - 4 2 8 .  100  Riechard, D.E. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . So y o u ' r e planning a science fair: comments f r o m a j u d g e . C l e a r i n g House. 19.( 6 ) , 2 5 6 - 2 5 8 . Robertson, M.T. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Use o f v i d e o t a p e - s t i m u l a t e d r e c a l l i n t e r v i e w s t o s t u d y t h e t h o u g h t s and f e e l i n g s o f s t u d e n t s a s they worked i n an i n t r o d u c t o r y b i o l o g y l a b o r a t o r y c o u r s e . Unpublished master's t h e s i s , C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , C o r n e l l . Sacks, H. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . I r v i n e MS.  Lecture notes.  D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i o l o g y , U.C.  Sacks, H., S c h e g l o f f , E., and J e f f e r s o n , G. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A simplest systematics f o r the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language. 50, 696-735. Schoeneberger, M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Hard a s r o c k : A s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n ' s perceptions o f mineral hardness. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , Edmonton. Sinclair, J . M., and C o u l t h a r d , R. M. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Towards an analysis c_f_ discourse; t h e E n g l i s h u s e d bx teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Smith, N. F. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . Why s c i e n c e f a i r s d o n ' t e x h i b i t t h e g o a l s o f s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g . The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r . iLZ( 1) , 2 2 - 2 4 . Speece, S. P. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . Indiana Science F a i r s : A study o f student perception of benefits and t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e of student participation. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 03A, p.1387 ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 7 9 - 1 8 7 9 4 ) . Subotnik, R.F. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . S c i e n t i f i c c r e a t i v i t y : 1983 W e s t i n g h o u s e science talent s e a r c h w i n n e r ' s problem finding behavior. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l 4J5_, 3317A. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. D A 8 5 0 1 1 0 2 ) . T  Tuckwell, N.B. (1980). Stimulated recall: Theoretical perspectives and p r a c t i c a l and t e c h n i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s (Tech. Rep. No. 8 - 2 - 3 ) . Edmonton: U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , Centre f o r Research i n Teaching. Wardhaugh, R. Publisher,  (1985). Oxford.  How C o n v e r s a t i o n W o r k s .  Basil Blackwell  Youth  Science Foundation. from t h e [Y.S.F. Ontario]).  (1985). Y.S.F. R e p o r t . ( A v a i l a b l e 151 S l a t e r St., S t . 805 O t t a w a ,  Youth  Science Foundation. (1984). 1966 and a l l t h a t . from the [Y.S.F. 151 S l a t e r S t . , S t . 805 O t t a w a ,  101  (Available Ontario]).  APPENPIX A A P e s o r i p t i o n OL th£.  P r o j e p t " I n s u l a t i o n Q u a l i t y Q£  102  Materials"  The  science  produced  by  project  a G r a d e 7,  the  project  was  to  of  energy  and  the  fabrics". display  The  recorded,  and  experiment  was  comfortable pages are the  "investigate transfer  notebook recorded.  during  the  of  of  an  The  the  judging  taken from the  written  the  the  used  s t u d e n t spoke w e l l conversations. summary t h e  judges:  103  a  thin visual  experiment  procedure  The  and  of  source  and  experiment, of  was  purpose  through t h i c k  conclusions where  The  r e l a t i o n s h i p between a  heat...  consisted  r e s u l t s and  a  of M a t e r i a l s "  t h i r t e e n year old g i r l .  project  where t h e  "Insulation Quality  were  in  the  seemed following  student submitted  to  Ins  Insulating Qualities  o_f_ D i f f e r e n t F a b r i c s  u s e d Hon  Clothing  -AIMTO and  investigate  the  transfer  of  the  relationship  between a s o u r c e o f  energy  h e a t f r o m t h i s s o u r c e t h r o u g h t h i c k and  thin  fabrics.  -QUESTIONWhat for  are  the  i n s u l a t i n g q u a l i t i e s of  different fabrics  used  clothing?  -HYPOTHESISAt heat  the  s t a r t of  transferred  fabric.  In  the  project  I thought that  w o u l d depend on  other  words,  the  t h i c k n e s s of  w h e t h e r the  d i f f e r e n t f a b r i c s w o u l d depend on  the  the  amount  a  of  particular  insulating qualities  t h i c k n e s s of  these  of  fabrics.  -METHODTo model  investigate to  represent  chickenwire was  even s o u r c e o f  the  and  the  h e a t i t was  the  fall  and  checked at regular  exterior of  the  t e s t my  and  hypothesis I  energy.  to r a d i a t e  left  experiment. the  to  source of  t u r n e d on  t h e n mounted on rise  aim  I used a l i g h t b u l b  subsequently  starting  my  In heat.  cylinder The  i n order to c r e a t e on  f o r 20  the  cylinder.  temperature i n s i d e  i n t e r v a l s and  104  recorded.  a  the  of  constant, actually  fabrics  With a  a  lightbulb  minutes before  V a r i o u s t h i c k n e s s e s of of  a  made  were  thermometer  cylinder  was  -EXPERIMENTIn  my  different some  experiment fabrics  electric  I tested  with  the  insulating  qualities  a model made o f c h i c k e n w i r e ,  wire,  a  lightbulb,  a  metal  of  styrofoam,  plate,  and  a  thermometer. [The woven  different  fabrics,  dry,  were k n i t t e d  i.e.  thin,  medium,  p i e c e s o f f a b r i c were t e s t e d  wet,  fabrics,  and w i n d / w a t e r p r o o f e d f a b r i c s .  f a b r i c were t e s t e d different  fabrics]  d r y / w i n d , and w e t / w i n d .  and,  felted  fabrics,  [Three of  thick.  i n different  each  These  12  c o n d i t i o n s of  A f a n was u s e d t o c r e a t e t h e  wind.] Each inside  fabric  p l a c e d on t h e model and  t h e model was c h e c k e d e v e r y  minutes. different been  was  [A  total  conditions.  of  12  the  temperature  two and a h a l f m i n u t e s f o r  different  fabrics  T h e r e f o r e 48 d i f f e r e n t  were t e s t e d tests  should  20  in  4  have  conducted.]  -CONCLUSIONThe r e s u l t s (1) fact (2)  [The  o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t showed  temperature l e v e l e d ] o f f a f t e r  to  some t i m e due  t h a t the source of heat being t r a n s f e r r e d The  [All fabrics  characteristics  the  constant. at  the  fabric. were] b e t t e r  when [ t h e y w e r e ] wet.  insulating  was  to  l e v e l i n g o f f of the temperature d i d not occur  same t i m e f o r e a c h (3)  the f o l l o w i n g :  seemed  h e a t c o n d u c t o r s when d r y as  Even w i t h  to follow  wind a p p l i e d  t h e same p a t t e r n .  environment f o r a l l the f a b r i c s  f a b r i c was s o a k e d and p l a c e d i n f r o n t 105  tested  of a f a n . ]  the  opposed  insulating  [The p o o r e s t was  when  the  (4)  The s t r u c t u r e o f t h e f a b r i c  transferred fabric  d e t e r m i n e d t h e amount  ( o r the degree of i n s u l a t i o n ) .  d i d not a f f e c t  This fact  a fabrics  unfortunately  insulation  of  heat  [The t h i c k n e s s o f t h e potential.]  p r o v e s my h y p o t h e s i s  wrong.  -APPARATUSChicken knitted  wire,  lightbulb,  fabrics,  miscellaneous  woven  fabrics,  electrical fabrics,  cord,  egg t i m e r ,  wind/water  styrofoam,  proofed  t h e r m o m e t e r , and an e l e c t r i c f a n .  106  fabrics,  PHOTOGRAPHS (THE BACKBOARDS)  PHOTOGRAPHS  (THE GRAPHS)  108  PHOTOGRAPHS  (THE APPARATUS)  109  APPENDIX 1 YOUTH SCIENCE FQUNPATIQN CRITERIA  110  Judging F o r m Grades 7-13  Project Number Exhibitor(s)  S c i e n t i f i c Thought (45 potential points) 1. The hypothesis was stated clearly and reflected the background readings. 2. There was an effective plan for obtaining a solution or answer to a.question. 3. The project carried out its purpose to completion within the scope of the original plan. 4. The project shows an understanding of existing knowledge, use of adequate scientific vocabulary and demonstrates an understanding of terms gleaned from reliable sources of information. 5. The experimental design demonstrated understanding of the scientific methods. 6. The student(s) has/have an idea of what further research is indicated by the project. 7. There is adequate data to support the conclusions. The experimental errors inherent in the measurement made and in the materials used were recognized. (The variability inherent in living material is often not recognized by students.) 8. The experiment was repeated several times to establish validity of results and/or s t a t i s t i c a l l y validated. 9. The variables are clearly defined and recognized. If controls were necessary, there was a recognition of their need and they were correctly used. C r e a t i v e A b i l i t y ( ^ p o t e n t i a l points) 1. To what degree is the problem original and the approach to the problem shows originality.  Ill  2. The interpretation of the data shows effectiveness and c r e a t i v i t y ; - use of tables, graphs and illustrations in interpreting data. 3. The construction or design of equipment shows originality. 4. The materials and equipment have been used in an ingenious way. N o t e : Judges must consider whether something is original for a secondary or elementary student. It is very important to ascertain the nature of the assistance which the student has r e c e i v e d . Skill (7:0 potential points) 1. To what extent does the project and exhibit represent a product of the student's own skills? 2. The researcher answered the questions effectively and accurately. 3. Skill was shown in the development of the display: - project requires minimum maintenance and repair under normal working conditions - workmanship is neat and well done D r a m a t i c Value ( l O p o t e n t i a l points) 1. Exhibitor presented his/her project in a comprehensive and enthusiastic manner with the use of visual aids 2 . The display board was e f f e c t i v e in presenting the project: - well organized and explains itself - a t t r a c t i v e and incorporates a multisensory approach  ^> IA. WN  cv v vj  (^c  pc-f-<^v-K4  ^c^-,)  - Has a l l the required information been provided within the specified guidelines? - Has the student(s) expressed himself well in written m a t e r i a l ? How much of the w r i t t e n material was prepared witti the assistance of other persons? - A r e the important phases of the project presented in an orderly manner in the summary? Please C o m m e n t .  i a  APPENPXX £ INSULATION OE MATERIALS - CLOTHING A C o n v e r s a t i o n B e t w e e n J u d g e B and ; at the Vancouver ( L o w e r M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l ) S c i e n c e F a i r on A p r i l 1 1 , 1986.  113  APPENDIX C INSULATION OF MATERIALS - CLOTHING A C o n v e r s a t i o n B e t w e e n J u d g e B and at the Vancouver ( L o w e r M a i n l a n d ) R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e F a i r on A p r i l 1 1 , 1 9 8 6 . (1)Judgethat?  ...You  have a f u n n y  eye t h e r e do you  Student-  I g u e s s i t does l o o k k i n d o f f u n n y .  realize  ( 2 ) J - And h e r e x h i b i t i s titled " The Insulating Qualities o f D i f f e r e n t F a b r i c s Used f o r C l o t h i n g " . My name is _, I am g o i n g t o be one o f y o u r judges t o n i g h t and... Mr. K i d d e l l has c l e a r e d t a p i n g w i t h you? S- Y e s , he h a s . ( 3 ) J - O.K. That i s fine. Thankyou very much f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n h i s study. Could y o u t e l l me what y o u have g o t h e r e and t e l l me particularly some o f t h e s c i e n c e b e h i n d i t , I am very interested i n t h e s c i e n c e . . . b u t t e l l me w h a t e v e r y o u have p r e p a r e d . S- O.K. My p r o j e c t i s t o s e e what k i n d s o f f a b r i c s make the best insulators. And I c h o s e a l l of these fabrics... because I had 3 k n i t t e d f a b r i c s , 3 woven fabrics, 3 wind and w a t e r p r o o f fabrics and 3 miscellaneous fabrics. The m i s c e l l a n e o u s ones i n c l u d e d my d u f f l e coat, t h i s f e l t e d b l a n k e t and t h i s quilted down b e c a u s e I c o u l d n ' t g e t them i n t o any category... And I k i n d o f wanted t o s e e w h i c h ones were b e s t . . . The r e a s o n why I d i d n ' t g e t some ( U N I N T E L L I G I B L E ) f o r t h e s e ones was b e c a u s e t h i s one was a s w e a t e r and I c o u l d n ' t exactly c u t out of t h a t . . . And t h i s one was my d u f f l e coat, t h i s one was my w i n d j a c k e t , a r e a l t h i n one ... and t h i s one was a t h i c k e r one and t h e n t h i s one was my ski jacket. ( 4 ) J - D i d y o u t e s t a l l o f t h e s e on t h e g a r m e n t s ? you t e s t t h o s e l i t t l e s w a t c h e s ? S- L i t t l e  swatches?  (5)JWhen you garment i n h e r e ?  I  were  Or d i d  don't... t e s t i n g them  d i d you  put the  S- I d i d n ' t p u t them i n t h e r e , I p u t them on t o p o f this. So I p u t i t . . . like... this isn't quite working... T h i s was one o f my f a b r i c s . I would take 114  it... only I w o u l d u n r o l l i t a l l t h e way. This thing s t i l l has a p i n i n i t . . . Whoops... (LAUGHTER) Oh w e l l . . . So I ' d u n r o l l i t a l l t h e way... t h a t w o u l d make i t too much f a b r i c r i g h t now. So I ' l l j u s t r o l l i t h a l f way... and I ' l l p u t t h i s one o v e r (DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS UNINTELLIGIBLE) (6) J - I g e t t h e i d e a . S- So i t w o u l d have  Don't...  a bunch  there.  (7) J - Y e s . S- I t w o u l d have a t h e r m o m e t e r i n i t . I would up t o t h e 30 p o i n t , so t h a t t h e 30 was e x a c t l y with this, but there w o u l d n ' t be maybe say t h e r m o m e t e r i n i t t h a n i n a ... t h e o t h e r ( v o i c e o f f ) . . . Then I w o u l d t u r n on t h e l i g h t b u l b , b u t make sure t h a t no a i r c o u l d get at f i r s t . o t h e r w i s e t h a t w o u l d t o t a l l y k i l l my e x p e r i m e n t .  put i t equal more... trails I would Because  (8) J out?  getting  How  S- W e l l , (9) J -  d i d you make s u r e t h e r e  I would put l i t t l e  pins  was no a i r  i n here...  Oh y e s . So t h e s t y r o f o a m was n i c e  f o r that?  S- Mmm- mmm. I t was a l s o k i n d o f an i n s u l a t o r so w o u l d n ' t be t o o e x a c t . . . b u t . . .  this  ( 1 0 ) J - Mm-mm. S- So t h e n I would put t h i s i n t o (UNINTELLIGIBLE). T u r n on my egg t i m e r and t u r n on t h e l i g h t . Atf i r s t I would l e t t h e l i g h t go on f o r a b o u t 20 m i n u t e s s o t h a t it w o u l d be e q u a l w i t h t h e r e s t o f t h e ( U N I N T E L L I G I B L E ) Cuz I w o u l d do say 4 a d a y . 4 e x p e r i m e n t s a d a y . So i f I had p u t i t s t r a i g h t o f f w i t h o u t h e a t i n g i t up y e t t h e f i r s t one w o u l d have a c o l d lamp t o s t a r t o f f w i t h , t h e second one w o u l d have q u i t e a h o t lamp and t h e t h i r d e v e n h o t t e r and t h a t w o u l d be h o r r i b l e . . . (11) J — S-  What i s t h e power o f t h a t  lamp?  I t ' s 40 v o l . . .  ( 1 2 ) J-(INTERRUPTS) 40 W a t t s S- 40 v o l t s . ( 1 3 ) J - 40 W a t t s . Mm-mm. S- Cuz t h a t i s s o r t o f l i k e o u r body. Cuz o u r body g i v e s o f f 3 7 . . . 37 d e g r e e s C e l s i u s . T h a t ' s how much i t 115  is. (14) J -  How much power do you t h i n k y o u r body g i v e s  S- I w o u l d n ' t Watts?  really  know b u t I w o u l d g u e s s a b o u t  off? 40  ( 1 5 ) J - T h a t ' s a p r e t t y good g u e s s , actually. You put out a b o u t a s much a s a l i g h t b u l b . I p u t o u t more l i k e a 100 W a t t l i g h t b u l b and you p u t o u t more l i k e a 40 Watt l i g h t b u l b . B e c a u s e I'm b i g g e r . S- Mmm-mm. (16) J S-  I would p r o b a b l y guess t h a t . Yes.  Mm-mm.  B u t 40 W a t t s i s more what I w o u l d  (17) J -  (UNINTELLIGIBLE).  Yes. Yes.  S- S i n c e i t was an e x p e r i m e n t f o r my k i n d o f clothes. That, I d e c i d e d I w o u l d p i c k a 40 W a t t . . . and a l s o i didn't have v e r y much up t h e r e b e c a u s e some o f t h e s e ones went up t o o much. ( 1 8 ) J - Oh y e s ! S- So t h a t would a l m o s t be up t o t h e t o p a n d i f I picked a 100 W a t t l i g h t b u l b t h e n t h a t w o u l d make i t say 300 o r s o m e t h i n g . I n some c a s e s . . . (19) J — I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t you r e c o r d e d F a h r e n h e i t , was t h e r e a r e a s o n f o r t h a t c h o i c e ? S- W e l l i t was much e a s i e r t o , was much e a s i e r t o . . . get i t a l l o f t h e r e because i n s a y , i n t h i s you would only... i t w o u l d be much h a r d e r b e c a u s e t h i s w o u l d have 70 and t h e n 72, 74, 76, 7 8 , . . . (20) J - I s e e . So i t i s t h e f i n e r . . . t h e graduations on t h e t h e r m o m e t e r t h a t d e c i d e d y o u . i s a good r e a s o n .  finer That  S- And f o r t h e o t h e r one i t w o u l d j u s t go 3 0 . . . i t w o u l d do t h e same o n l y . . . u s u a l l y i t w o u l d n ' t g e t up t o 32, 34. So I t h o u g h t i t w o u l d be much e a s i e r . . . Then I put t h i s one up h e r e and I p u t my... my l i t t l e t i m e r f o r t h e 2 and a h a l f m i n u t e s . I w o u l d c h e c k i t a t 2 and a half minutes r e c o r d t h e t e m p e r a t u r e . . . Then I would continue on t o a n o t h e r 2 and a h a l f minutes for 20 minutes. Then I w o u l d l e t i t c o o l o f f f o r a b o u t 10 minutes, 5 minutes. So t h a t i t w o u l d n ' t be a t o t a l l y boiling hot l i g h t bulb... l i k e when I s t a r t e d o f f the 116  next (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And t h e n I p u t i t o v e r again. T u r n e d o n t h e f a n and u s e d t h e f a n a s my w i n d s o u r c e . ( 2 1 ) J - Oh I s e e . So y o u r e a d i t w i t h o u t a e x t e r n a l l i g h t source. What d i d y o u have a r o u n d i t , was i t j u s t s i t t i n g on a t a b l e ? S- I t was j u s t  sitting  ( 2 2 ) J - Mm-mm. A l w a y s S- Y e s . S i t t i n g  on t h e t a b l e .  sitting  on e x a c t l y  ( 2 3 ) J - Oh t h a t ' s good.  on a t a b l e . . .  t h e same  table.  T h a t i s a good way t o do i t .  S- So I t u r n e d on t h e f a n 2 and a h a l f m i n u t e s f o r 20 minutes. Then I w e t t e d t h i s b u t I p u t i t i n a b a t h t u b so t h a t . . . l e t i t s o a k up a l l o f t h e w a t e r . . . o r a s much water as i t could h o l d , o b v i o u s l y t h i s one w o u l d hold much l e s s than t h i s . So I j u s t p u t i n a s much w a t e r a s they w o u l d h o l d and t h e n I w o u l d do i t a g a i n w i t h just ... w i t h o u t a n y t h i n g and t h e n I w o u l d p u t t h e w i n d on it. As i t t u r n e d o u t t h e d r y was t h e h o t t e s t o f a l l . . . W e l l t h e h o t t e s t a s f a r a s t h e s e two a r e c o n c e r n e d . And t h e n t h e d r y w i t h t h e w i n d was t h e s e c o n d , t h e wet was the t h i r d and t h e wet w i t h t h e w i n d was t h e v e r y last. It was h o r r i b l e . . . And t h e s e a r e my g r a p h s t o show it... ( 2 4 ) J - I n o t i c e y o u have drawn t h i s f l a t a r e no p o i n t s o u t h e r e .  here but there  S- ...No t h a t i s b e c a u s e a t t h e end , t h e n i t always leveled o f f . B e c a u s e t h e same amount o f a i r g o t i n a s got out. So i t a l l l e v e l e d o f f . . . b u t a l l o f them l e v e l e d o f f a t a v e r y d i f f e r e n t t i m i n g . T h i s one i t j u s t l e v e l e d o f f p r a c t i c a l l y r i g h t away, same w i t h t h a t one. ( 2 5 ) J - So t h e f a n j u s t S- W e l l ,  s a t sort of l i k e  i t i s now?  i t was more t o w a r d s h e r e .  (26) J - I s e e . S- We keep t h e f a n i n t h e same p l a c e w o u l d n ' t be moved f u r t h e r away o r c l o s e r .  so t h a t i t  ( 2 7 ) J - Mm-mm. Mmm-mm. Well that's a very nice experiment actually. I am a l i t t l e w o r r i e d a b o u t y o u doing y o u r s e l f i n t h e r e though. (PAUSE) W i t h wet cloth around... S-  Yes.  I t does g e t a b i t d a n g e r o u s . . .  (28) J - yeh. (pause)  but...(pause)  D i d y o u have much h e l p w i t h 117  this?  S- No, b e c a u s e my Dad was i n H o l l a n d a n d . . . so he was v i s i t i n g my G r a n d p a . And my Mum was p a i n t i n g o v e r h i s o f f i c e and e v e r y t h i n g s o I was d o i n g t h i s a l l by m y s e l f . (29) J - W e l l , yourself. S- Mmm-mm. (30) J -  I  I guess  am  certainly  glad  you d i d n ' t  i t d i d get rather  dangerous...  hurt  Where d i d y o u g e t t h e i d e a f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t ?  S- W e l l , f i r s t o f a l l I had h e a r d a l r e a d y we were g o i n g to do a s c i e n c e f a i r . So t h a t e v e r y t h i n g I d i d I was s o r t o f t h i n k i n g w o u l d t h i s make a good e x p e r i m e n t ? And t h e n , we g o t , we had t o do Home E c . ... f o r s e w i n g . ... And s o when I was o u t t h e r e g e t t i n g my f a b r i c , I was thinking which one w o u l d be t h e b e s t f o r w i n t e r and which would be t h e b e s t f o r summer. And t h e n i t suddenly c l i c k e d t o me t h a t t h a t w o u l d be a w o n d e r f u l experiment. ... Maybe not w o n d e r f u l but a t l e a s t i t w o u l d make a v e r y good e x p e r i m e n t . ( 3 1 ) <J— W e l l , Dyana, I think i ti s a wonderful experiment. I think its... I think i t s quite o r i g i n a l . . . I t h i n k i t i s v e r y w e l l done... S- T h a n k y o u . ( 3 2 ) J - . . . I t h i n k ... I think that... a h , w e l l you've taken into a c c o u n t some t h i n g s h e r e w h i c h many people d o n ' t t h i n k o f : K e e p i n g c o n d i t i o n s t h e same... i s very i m p o r t a n t i n s c i e n c e s o y o u a l w a y s want t o ... r e a l i z e what i t i s you a r e m e a s u r i n g . (pause) There i s one thing that you m i g h t n o t have t h o u g h t about. (pause) When t h e f a b r i c was w e t . . . S- Y e s . . . ( 3 3 ) J - ...  t h e w a t e r was e v a p o r a t i n g a l l t h e t i m e . . .  S- Y e s . T h a t i s r i g h t , (34) J time.  (laughter)  So t h e c o n d i t i o n was r e a l l y  changing  a l l  SI guess i t was... b u t s i n c e i t was 20 m i n u t e s d i d n ' t t h i n k t h a t i t w o u l d e v a p o r a t e t o o much. (35) J S-  No. I t was s t i l l  wet when y o u f i n i s h e d ?  Y e s i t was. I t was s t i l l  ( 3 6 ) J - Y e h . Mmm-mm. 118  more o r l e s s  t h e same.  the  I  S-  . . . b u t t h a t was  (37) J S-  ...  p r o b a b l y because  i t was...  So... totally  (38) J - Yeh.  s o a k e d i t so t h a t i t was  Yeh.  (PAUSE)  totally  So t h a t i s t h e  wet.  ...  SThis one's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) i n the w a t e r . But I only did this one w i t h the dry and the dry wind. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) p u t my d u f f l e c o a t i n t o t h e w a t e r and soap i t up b e c a u s e i t w o u l d p r o b a b l y s h r i n k . . . (PAUSE) I also d i d ... wet, wet-wind-dry, dry... (PAUSE) These ones were a l l f o r my b a c k g r o u n d b e c a u s e i did q u i t e a b i t of background r e a d i n g . Because I hadn't t h o u g h t o f my e x p e r i m e n t . . . q u i t e a w h i l e . F i r s t I was thinking of ... I liked clothes anyway. I love clothes. (laughter) I love ( UNINTELLIGIBLE) and everything so I had a l r e a d y d e c i d e d I w o u l d p r o b a b l y do one on c l o t h e s . T i l I j u s t s o r t o f b a c k g r o u n d and r e a d about i t . (39) J - ( PAUSE) W e l l , I t h i n k i t i s very n i c e . Where d i d y o u , where d i d you f i n d y o u r c o l l a t e r a l r e a d i n g ? S- I n t h e P u b l i c  Library.  ( 4 0 ) J - What s o u r c e s . . . d i d you u s e ? g o t them l i s t e d i n y o u r . . . S-  I g u e s s you  have  Yes.  ( 4 1 ) J - O.K. I w i l l to l o o k a t i t y e t .  look at that.  I h a v e n ' t had a c h a n c e  SI u s e d a. c o u p l e o f p r e t t y young c h i l d r e n ' s books t o start me o f f . B e c a u s e I d i d n ' t know v e r y much about this subject. So I d e c i d e d t o s t a r t o f f . . . ( 4 2 ) J - You know a f a i r amount a b o u t i t . . . i f you designed t h i s e x p e r i m e n t you a r e d o i n g f i n e . (PAUSE) You d o n ' t ... you d o n ' t . . . t h e b e a u t i f u l t h i n g about science i s you don't r e a l l y have t o use very much o u t s i d e knowledge t o s t a r t w i t h . You do have t o use. a lot o f common s e n s e . You have u s e d i t ...and been conspicuous. O.K. ... Well t h a n k you v e r y much f o r s h o w i n g me t h i s . I think i t i s really fine... I quite like i t . I h a v e n ' t seen t h e . . . oh, sorry, yes I ' l l l e a v e t h a t w i t h y o u . (END OF TAPE)  119  APPENDIX P_ INTERVIEW PROTOCOL £0_R JUDGE £  120  APPENPIX R INTERVIEW PROTOCOL £CvR JUDGE B. INTRODUCTION SHOW COLOUR PHOTO OF PROJECT AND STUDENT. You judged this project Insulation of M a t e r i a l s - Clothing, s t u d e n t , (NAME) , and j u d g e d i t as s e c o n d , c l a s s , (pause) I'm s u r e t h a t y o u remember i t c l e a r l y . (pause) Now I w o u l d l i k e to ask some q u e s t i o n s t h a t w i l l h e l p me u n d e r s t a n d how you j u d g e d t h i s science f a i r project. 1. HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR JUDGEMENT How d i d y o u make up y o u r m i n d ? 2. HOW  IMPORTANT WAS  OF THIS PROJECT?  THE INTERVIEW IN MAKING UP YOUR MIND?  INTERVIEW QUESTIONS I w o u l d now l i k e t o a s k some q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r i n t e r v i e w with (NAME). Here i s a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e i n t e r v i e w . You w i l l s e e t h a t J stands f o r judge and S s t a n d s f o r s t u d e n t and a l l y o u r q u e s t i o n s and r e p l i e s are transcribed. Let  me  start  by r e p l a y i n g  the  beginning  of  the  interview.  3. You began t h e i n t e r v i e w m a k i n g a s t a t e m e n t . WHAT WAS IN YOUR MIND WHEN YOU MADE THIS STATEMENT? AT THAT TIME DID THIS STATEMENT SERVE ITS INTENDED PURPOSE? WERE THERE OTHER PURPOSES?  4.  QUESTION #8 (PAUSE) WHAT WERE YOU SEARCHING FOR? WHY DID YOU LET IT GO?  121  5. (READ RESPONSE TO #10.) WHAT WAS IN YOUR MIND AS YOU ASKED QUESTION #11? LET'S NOW LOOK AT A WHOLE SERIES OF QUESTIONS. PLEASE READ THE QUESTIONS STARTING AT 11 AND FINISHING AT 1 8 . AS YOU REMEMBER I T , WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS GOING ON BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU THERE? WERE YOU SUSPICIOUS AS TO WHETHER DYANA UNDERSTOOD THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HUMAN BODY AND THE BULB? WHAT WAS MEANT BY 300 I N #18? CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? WHAT LED YOU TO ASKING ABOUT FAHRENHEIT IN #19... OR WAS THAT A FRESH IDEA? 6. NOW #21 SEEMS TO INTRODUCE A NEW CONCEPT OR IDEA... WAS THAT YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR THERE? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT IDEA CAME FROM?  WHAT WHERE  7.( Take Judge B through t h i s sequence) I N THE RESPONSE TO #23... THE STUDENT RAISED AN ISSUE THAT YOU RESPONDED TO I N #24... YOU THEN LEFT THIS AREA AND RETURNED TO THE FAN IN #25. DO I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY? THIS I S WHAT HAPPENED? 8.  PLEASE READ SECTION #27-#30. THERE ARE TWO P O S S I B I L I T I E S ( 1 ) THE STUDENT BEING EXPOSED TO AN ELECTRICAL HAZARD WITHOUT SUFFICIENT SUPERVISION AND/OR ( 2 ) TOO MUCH HELP FOR IT TO BE CALLED HER PROJECT. THAT I S TOO MUCH ASSISTANCE. WERE BOTH THESE THINGS GOING ON? 9. THERE I S ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING SEQUENCE #31 - #35. WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE? THESE ARE INTERESTING QUESTIONS. I WONDER COULD YOU TAKE ME THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS AND TELL ME WHAT WAS IN YOUR MIND AS THE SEQUENCE PROGRESSED? 10. YOU ENDED THE INTERVIEW WITH A SERIES OF STATEMENTS. WAS I N YOUR MIND AS YOU MADE THESE STATEMENTS? WHY DID YOU END THIS WAY? END OF TRANSCRIPT QUESTIONS  122  WHAT  INTERVIEW PROTOCOL £0_R JUDGE B_ 11. HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR JUDGEMENT? I would now l i k e t o a s k some q u e s t i o n s n o t asked a t the beginning. D i d y o u p r e - v i e w t h e p r o j e c t ? Yes/No. Why? V a l u e . D i d t h e s t u d e n t make a p r e s e n t a t i o n ? Y e s / n o . V a l u e . Were y o u c o m p a r i n g t h i s p r o j e c t t o o t h e r p r o j e c t s y o u have seen? Were t h e s e p r o j e c t s i n t h e same c a t e g o r y ? (looking f o r r e l a t i v e or a b s o l u t e standards) 12.  WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR INTERVIEW? Were you confirming your judgement or making judgement? Were y o u u s i n g a p r e s e t f o r m a t f o r y o u r q u e s t i o n i n g ? NO  YES  T h i s i s a s e q u e n c e y o u seem t o u s e see y e l l o w s h e e t What prompts t h e sequence of i d e a s you use?  DESCRIBE IDENTIFY FORMAT  DID YOU USE THE JUDGING CRITERIA PROVIDED WHY/WHY NOT?  11.  a  BY  THE  ORGANIZERS?  REFLECTION ON JUDGEMENT - AN INVITATION. How do y o u v i e w t h e p r o j e c t now? How do y o u v i e w y o u r j u d g e m e n t o f t h e p r o j e c t now?  123  APPENDIX K INTERVIEW  WITH JUPGE  124  1  APPENDIX  £  INTERVIEW WITH JUDGE 1  R- Okay, what t h i s i s a l l a b o u t i s I'm g o i n g t o t r y and key you i n t o one p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t . The way I ' v e gone a b o u t that i s I ' v e made a t r a n s c r i p t o f one i n t e r v i e w and I've some p h o t o g r a p h s t h a t m i g h t h e l p you remember. I t ' s the project by (student's name and. p r o j e c t number). This p r o j e c t was a w a r d e d a s e c o n d c l a s s a t t h e f a i r . I t was t h e I n s u l a t i o n of M a t e r i a l s — C l o t h i n g . I'm s u r e you remember it. J - Oh yes. The g i r l was w e a r i n g , as a m a t t e r of fact insulating...one of those...what do you call them???...fabric t h a t has c o n v o l u t i o n s i n it...insulating fabric...underwear I think! She was w e a r i n g an u n d e r w e a r shirt! R- What t h e y J-  Thermal  call  thermal  material?  underwear!  R- I'm g o i n g t o ask you a c o u p l e o f q u e s t i o n s and t h e n I'm s p e c i f i c a l l y g o i n g t o go t h r o u g h some b i t s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w t o c l a r i f y i f I'm u n d e r s t a n d i n g e x a c t l y what i t was t h a t . . . J-  Okay, do you  R-  Would t h a t be  JRis  want me helpful  to read  this  first?  t o remember i t ?  No. Okay, good. J u s t a g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n about t h i s p r o j e c t how d i d you come t o y o u r j u d g e m e n t o f t h i s p r o j e c t ?  J- Actually, I j u d g e d t h i s more h i g h l y when I t h o u g h t i t was o r i g i n a l t h a n I d i d s u b s e q u e n t l y . I b e l i e v e I t o l d you the i n t e r a c t i o n I had w i t h the g i r l f r o m Summerland right afterwards? R-  Oh...and t h i s  i s the  one.  J - Yes, t h i s was t h e one. I t h o u g h t t h i s was a terribly c o m p e t e n t j o b and i f she had c o n c e i v e d i t a l l h e r s e l f , done t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n , w o r r i e d a b o u t a l l t h e d e t a i l s , she had c e r t a i n l y done a job. R- What d i d the i n f l u e n c e d you?  girl  f r o m Summerland say  about  i t  that  J - The g i r l f r o m Summerland, who's name e s c a p e s me, was t h e one who d i d t h e p r o j e c t on t h e h e a t i n g v a l u e s o f wood. I 125  n o t i c e d she was f r o m Summerland and I s a i d , "Oh, were you here l a s t year?" She s a i d , "Yes, I was." I said, "What was y o u r p r o j e c t t h e n ? " She s a i d , "Well, I did a project on t h e i n s u l a t i o n v a l u e s o f f a b r i c s . . . w i t h a l i g h t b u l b and a thermometer." I t h i n k t h e n more t h i n g s became c l e a r . I think that i s the r e a s o n I r a t e d the f u e l v a l u e of wood higher. So she was s a y i n g t h e r i g h t t h i n g s , but I have no r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h e r e was any g u i l e i n v o l v e d . She was a t o t a l l y g u i l e s s i n d i v i d u a l as a m a t t e r o f f a c t . She was an incredibly timid individual. I took Evelyn over to i n t r o d u c e h e r even a f t e r t h e j u d g i n g and e v e r y t h i n g was a l l o v e r and she was s t i l l v e r y w i t h d r a w n and mousey. R- Y e s , t h a t ' s t r u e . T h a t ' s not t h i s g i r l t h e g i r l w i t h t h e wood b u r n i n g p r o j e c t .  though, t h a t  was  J - No, I was q u i t e i m p r e s s e d w i t h t h i s g i r l . This girl seemed bright. She d e f i n i t e l y d i d know why she had done what she had done and t h a t i s v e r y important with me. There seems t o be a l a r g e number o f k i d s o u t t h e r e who are capable o f f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s and i t i s b e l i e v e d that f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s i s a v a l u a b l e end i n i t s e l f and I've n e v e r b e l i e v e d t h a t a t a l l and I ' v e a l w a y s a t l e a s t raised my own c h i l d r e n t o t a k e a q u e s t i o n i n g a t t i t u d e t o f o l l o w i n g instructions. And t h a t g e t s a l i t t l e i n f u r i a t i n g t o o t h e r people as a matter of f a c t , who a r e i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h my kids. They e v e n t u a l l y l e a r n t h a t my k i d s a r e not being s m a r t a s s e d but t h e y ' r e b e i n g r e a s o n a b l e , i t ' s j u s t t h e y ' r e t a u g h t t o l i v e t h a t way, t h a t ' s a l l . R-  Not  t o be  prescribed.  J - I f t h e y can t h i n k o f a b e t t e r way t o do s o m e t h i n g , I've told them t o do i t one way and t h e y can t h i n k o f a better way, and as l o n g as t h e y t e l l me why i t ' s a b e t t e r way, I say go ahead and do i t . They've a l w a y s had t h a t f r e e d o m . R- I n your judgement, what was t h e . . . t h e r e seemed t o be what I ' d c a l l s e v e r a l p a r t s t o t h e p r o j e c t . Some o f them being the d i s p l a y , the b a c k b o a r d s , t h e r e m i g h t be an o r a l presentation where the s t u d e n t t a l k s , there's a written r e p o r t u s u a l l y and t h e r e ' s t h e i n t e r v i e w where you t a l k to the s t u d e n t . Are t h o s e i m p o r t a n t t o you and i n what ways? J- I think the thing t h a t was most important was her s c i e n t i f i c p r o b l e m and her e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n t o f i n d the solution for t h a t p r o b l e m were immediately transparent. She e x p l a i n e d them i n not t o o many words v e r y c l e a r l y . She e x p l a i n e d what she d i d , she e x p l a i n e d why she d i d i t , as I said. I m m e d i a t e l y I c o u l d put t h i n g s f o r my own k n o w l e d g e on i t , but t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t I d i d n ' t have t o w i t h t h i s girl than I had t o w i t h f o r i n s t a n c e , with the pinhole camera g i r l b e f o r e h e r who r e a l l y h a d n ' t t h e s l i g h t e s t i d e a o f how a p i n h o l d camera w o r k e d . And t h e p i n h o l e camera i s actually an e a s i e r t h i n g to understand than the project 126  this g i r l had. So I g u e s s I was r e a l l y grading, you're always g r a d i n g c o n t e x t . I ' v e seen many s c i e n c e f a i r s and t h i s g i r l ' s was a c u t above most s c i e n c e f a i r s . I have t o say those p i n h o l e c a m e r a s were n o t b a d . . . t h e y were a c u t a b o v e most s c i e n c e f a i r s , but they weren't o r i g i n a l . This one looked original t o me. I'm s u r e t h e r e i s a fair element of o r i g i n a l i t y i n i t even w i t h my subsequent information. R- So, t h a t i n t e r v i e w t h e n , f r o m what you s a i d t h e r e seems t o be y o u know, t h e i n t e r v i e w i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t . J - The i n t e r v i e w , y e s , i s t h e most i m p o r t a n t . I tend t o judge the p a r t i c i p a n t more t h a n the e x h i b i t i f the p a r t i c i p a n t seems t o be i n v o l v e d w i t h and i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e exhibit, that's important. I f the p a r t i c i p a n t is knowledgeable about the e x h i b i t , that's important. The graphics quality d o e s n ' t i m p r e s s me a t a l l . H e r ' s was average as i t t u r n s o u t , b u t t h a t i s n o t i m p o r t a n t . If t h a t was i m p o r t a n t t h e n t h e s e c o n d p i n h o l e g i r l w o u l d have washed away.... t h o s e r a z o r boards r e a l l y g o t me...those lettraset r a z o r boards. I couldn't quite understand why any sentient p a r e n t w o u l d l e t t h a t g e t o u t o f t h e house actually. R- What I'm g o i n g t o do now i s a s k you some q u e s t i o n s y o u r i n t e r v i e w w i t h (STUDENT NAME). L-  i s her r e a l  about  name.  R- I ' v e g i v e n y o u a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e i n t e r v i e w and y o u ' l l n o t i c e I ' v e p u t * J ' and 'S'. ' J ' r e f e r s t o your responses and 'S' t o t h e s t u d e n t s . And I ' v e a l s o numbered your s t a t e m e n t s and q u e s t i o n s , so I ' l l r e f e r t o t h o s e numbers a s we go t h r o u g h . What I ' d l i k e t o do i s p l a y t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e i n t e r v i e w , j u s t t o g i v e you t h e g i r l ' s v o i c e a g a i n . (Plays tape) You began the interview by m a k i n g a s t a t e m e n t . . . what I consider the beginning i s r i g h t here where you r e f e r r e d t o t h e s c i e n c e and w h a t e v e r you have prepared. What was i n y o u r mind when y o u made that statement. J - Some s t u d e n t s had m e m o r i z e d a s p i e l and t h e s p i e l went through h i s t o r y and v a r i o u s o t h e r t h i n g s . The o r i g i n of degara types d i d n ' t r e a l l y i n t e r e s t me v e r y much i n t h i s e x h i b i t because t h e e x h i b i t wasn't about degara t y p e s . So what I w a n t e d t o do was c u t t h r o u g h t o i t , probably again, a carry over from the p r e v i o u s e x h i b i t s , the previous talks. I a l s o wanted t o see i f the s t u d e n t i s c a p a b l e o f e x p r e s s i n g t h o u g h t s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e t h a t were w r i t t e n down i n d e t a i l i n advance. And a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , Dyana as I r e c a l l extemporized. She d i d n o t g i v e me a p r e p a r e d s p i e l . And she e x t e m p o r i z e d a s a m a t t e r of f a c t , articulately, which I rate highly. As I s a i d , I j u d g e s t r o n g l y on t h e i n d i v i d u a l performance. I d i d n ' t a s k h e r what c a r e e r a r e 127  you R-  planning f o r . Yes,  She's n o t  f r o m C r o f t o n House i s s h e ?  she i s .  J - Okay, I had two e x h i b i t s f r o m C r o f t o n House when I j u d g e d t h e r e and I s a i d , "Oh, y e s , what a r e you p l a n n i n g t o go i n t o . " I t h o u g h t t h e y were q u i t e good so she s a i d , "I'm g o i n g t o become a l a w y e r . " The n e x t g i r l t o h e r you know, I d e c i d e d t o a s k t h e same q u e s t i o n a f t e r I had f i n i s h e d . . . I t h o u g h t h e r ' s was q u i t e good t o o . I a s k e d h e r what she was g o i n g t o do, she s a i d , "I'm g o i n g t o become a l a w y e r . " Two i n a row! I q u i t a s k i n g the q u e s t i o n . R- Were there statement?  other  purposes  for  that  introductory  J - The p u r p o s e was t h a t I w a n t e d r e a l l y t o c u t r i g h t t o t h e science. My i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e g i r l was, I guess f a i r l y abrupt at that point. I had gone t h r o u g h two at that point. R- No, I d i d n ' t t h i n k you were t o o a b r u p t . I t h o u g h t you led in marvellously. She felt...you seemed to have l o o s e n e d h e r up. J - Oh, I t h i n k she's a very p o i s e d , at ease individual. That i m p r e s s e d me a b o u t many o f the c o m p e t i t o r s t h i s y e a r . They've t a l k e d t o a d u l t s . R- I t h i n k i t ' s on t h e n e x t page o f y o u r l i k e t o jump t o q u e s t i o n 8. J-  "How  d i d you  R-  What were you  make s u r e  t h e r e was  no  transcript.  I'd  a i r g e t t i n g out?"  searching f o r .  J - The p r i n c i p l e mode by w h i c h h e a t i s t r a n s f e r r e d i n most p r o c e s s e s t h a t occur i n the atmosphere i s c o n v e c t i o n . It is very important to distinguish convection from conduction. I n s u l a t i o n i s a measurement 1 a r g e l y . . . t h e r e i s a process whereby t h e c o n d u c t i o n i s m i n i m i z e d . If you leave l e a k s i n the house, you know i t c o o l s faster than anything else. You can t a l k a l l you l i k e a b o u t the Rv a l u e s o f t h e w a l l s — t h e y can be v e r y h i g h , b u t i f you open a door, you can f o r g e t a b o u t them, t h e y d o n ' t m a t t e r , t h e y can be twice as high, t h a t ' s not going' t o make any difference. So I w a n t e d t o see i f she had w o r r i e d about that. She had. I a c t u a l l y asked a d i f f e r e n t q u e s t i o n than t h e one she a n s w e r s . I a s k e d , "How d i d you make s u r e t h e r e was no a i r g e t t i n g o u t ? " , and t h a t i s a q u e s t i o n o f d i d you have some way o f d e t e r m i n i n g i f t h e r e was h o t a i r l e a k i n g anywhere. D i d you f e e l s o m e t h i n g e l s e l i k e t h a t ? Actually what she a n s w e r e d was, "How d i d you a s s u r e t h e r e was no a i r getting out." She d i d t h a t by p u t t i n g p i n s i n .  128  R- So, t h a t ' s why you l e f t  that question?  I n 9 you go....  J- Well, she had w o r r i e d a b o u t i t . The p o i n t i s t h a t i s certainly a t h i n g t h a t she had w o r r i e d about. She had styrofoam ends in her...she had a chicken wire cage...styrofoam ends, and t h e s t y r o f o a m ends were ideal for p o k i n g p i n s i n and s e a l i n g l e a k s . So t h e r e was some concern. R- G r e a t . Great. I n t h e r e s p o n s e t o 10, i t s a y s , "So t h e n I w o u l d p u t t h i s i n t o . . . t u r n on my egg t i m e r , t u r n on t h e light. A t f i r s t I w o u l d l e t t h e l i g h t go on f o r 20 m i n u t e s so i t w o u l d be e q u a l w i t h t h e r e s t o f them b e c a u s e I w o u l d do, say, four e x p e r i m e n t s a day. So i f I w o u l d p u t i t straight o f f w i t h o u t h e a t i n g i t up, y e t t h e f i r s t room w o u l d h a v e a c o l d lamp t o s t a r t o f f w i t h and t h e s e c o n d one w o u l d have q u i t e a h o t l a m p , and t h e t h i r d even h o t t e r , and t h a t w o u l d be h o r r i b l e . " Q u e s t i o n 11 a r i s e s o u t o f t h a t I suspect. What was i n y o u r mind a s you a s k e d q u e s t i o n 11? J - Oh, I d i d n ' t know what t h e power o f lamp was. I was w o n d e r i n g how h o t t h i n g s w o u l d g e t . I w o u l d n o t p u t a 100 watt lamp i n t h e r e . She s a i d i t was 40 v o l t s and I s a i d i t was 40 w a t t s . R- She p e r s e v e r e d watts.  w i t h 40 v o l t s  and y o u p e r s e v e r e d  with  40  J- A c t u a l l y , there was s o m e t h i n g d i s t r a c t i n g . I t turns out, I t h i n k she g o t l e s s h e l p f r o m t h a t t h a n she should h a v e , b e c a u s e one o f t h e t h i n g s I w o u l d i n s i s t on i f I had my k i d d r a p i n g wet c l o t h e s on t h i n g s i s I w o u l d i n s i s t t h a t any v o l t s t u f f be w e l l i n s u l a t e d . T h i s was a l i t t l e b i t raggedy. That i s one t h i n g t h a t d i d i m p r e s s me a b o u t h e r e x h i b i t . . . . i t l o o k e d l i k e she had done i t . R- Y e s . J - She m i g h t have g o t t e n h e l p f r o m an o l d e r n o t a much o l d e r b r o t h e r .  brother,  but  R- Okay. T h e r e ' s a w h o l e s e r i e s i n h e r e . 11 r i g h t t h r o u g h t o 18... b a s i c a l l y t h a t w h o l e page, where i t s t a r t s o f f w i t h 40 w a t t s . J - Oh y e s , where we t a l k a b o u t t h e o u t p u t o f a body. knew that was a b o u t what a human body put out or g u e s s e d t h a t ' s what i t was. R- And 17 h a s , clothes...."  "Since  She she  i t was an e x p e r i m e n t w i t h my k i n d o f  J - She a c t u a l l y t e s t e d h e r own g a r m e n t s . d u f f l e coat. I t h o u g h t i t was v e r y n i c e .  129  She  tested  a  R- Y e s . Were y o u s u s p i c i o u s as t o w h e t h e r Dyana u n d e r s t o o d t h e r e l a t i o n between t h e human body and t h e b u l b ? J-  No, n o t a t a l l .  R- You seem t o be g o i n g a f t e r t h a t t h e y s h o u l d t h e r e s h o u l d be some r e l a t i o n f o r c h o o s i n g . J - No, t h a t was e n t i r e l y at a l l . R- I s e e .  tangential.  be  equal,  T h a t was n o t c e n t r a l  Okay.  L- W e l l , I wouldn't put a 100-watt bulb i n t h e r e . I f you look a t t h e l i t t l e l a m p s you buy, i t t e l l s y o u 60 watt maximum. And t h e r e a s o n i s i f you p u t a 100 w a t t i n t h e r e it will cook the f i x t u r e screwed into and i t will eventually d i e because t h a t ' s t o o h o t . I wouldn't have gone above a 4 0 - w a t t b u l b i n t h e r e . I t ' s interesting that she had p i c k e d i t . I b e l i e v e f u l l y now, b e c a u s e a 4 0 - w a t t b u l b i s n o t a s t a n d a r d s i z e t h a t you keep a r o u n d t h e h o u s e , u s u a l l y 6 0 ' s and 1 0 0 ' s . . . I b e l i e v e f u l l y t h a t she had f o u n d in h e r s e t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t she s h o u l d use a 4 0 - w a t t bulb. I t g i v e s a l a r g e enough t e m p e r a t u r e d i f f e r e n c e t o be m e a s u r e d on a c r u d e t h e r m o m e t e r , but i t ' s not going t o s e t f i r e to anything. R- R i g h t . So i t d i d n ' t c o n c e r n y o u . . . y o u w e r e n ' t after seeing t h a t she u s e d s o m e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d a p p r o x i m a t e t h e human body t e m p e r a t u r e ? J-  No,  well  she  would  have t o  approximate  human  body  S l Z 6 « « • «  R- I n 19, t h e r e ' s . . . J - I a s k e d h e r why she r e c o r d e d i n F a h r e n h e i t . I had a reason i n mind, b u t t h e t h e r m o m e t e r she was u s i n g was graduated i n two d e g r e e s t e p s f o r e a c h o f F a h r e n h e i t and Celcius—they were b o t h on t h i s t h e r m o m e t e r . The higher precision measurement c o u l d be done i n t h e F a h r e n h e i t size for that reason. The s p a c e s were 5/9's a s f a r a p a r t and s o , i f I a s a s c i e n t i s t , I w o u l d have done e x a c t l y t h e same thing. I a s k e d h e r why she d i d i t and I t h i n k I p u t t h a t i n t o h e r mouth l a t e r o n . R- So 19 d i d n ' t come o u t o f t h e o t h e r , l i n e of thought  t h a t was j u s t  J-  exceedingly  Yes.  Well  she h a n d l e d t h e q u e s t i o n s  RI t was a m a s t e r f u l i n t e r v i e w you c o n d u c t e d . pleasure to l i s t e n t o i t . I enjoyed i t .  130  a new  well. I t was a  J - I d o n ' t know i f i t was t h e s e k i d s ; I r e a l l y do.  a masterful interview.  I enjoy  R- I t h i n k t h a t ' s what I mean by m a s t e r f u l . I look at mastery o f where the k i d i s a t ease, there is a good i n t e r p l a y between t h e p e o p l e . . . t h a t t o me i s f a n t a s t i c . J - Oh, yes. I had no t r o u b l e g e t t i n g t h i n g s o u t o f her, but when do you t a k e t h e w i n n e r ? D i d you l i s t e n t o the winner's i n t e r v i e w ? R- Y e s ,  I did.  J - T h a t was  You  worked a l i t t l e  b i t harder.  a l o t more work.  R- I n 2 1 , "Oh I s e e , so you r a n up w i t h an e x t e r n a l l i g h t s o u r c e . . . . " , i t seems t o i n t r o d u c e a new c o n c e p t or i d e a as o p p o s e d t o y o u ' r e g o i n g on t h r o u g h a l l .... J- This i s convection again. I f you just have that apparatus s i t t i n g i n the middle of a t a b l e , then i t i s n ' t c o o l so s t r o n g l y by b r e e z e s c o m i n g up p a s t i t . I f you were to s p e n d i t o u t i n t h e a i r , t h e n warm a i r c o u l d r i s e f r o m i t and c o l d a i r c o u l d come i n f r o m b e l o w and c o o l i t more. R-  So,  t h i s i s the i d e a of  control?  J - No, i f t h e y were a l l done t h a t way, t h e n t h a t w o u l d have been f i n e , but t h e y s h o u l d be i n some s t a n d a r d condition. She s a i d she d i d them a l w a y s s i t t i n g on a t a b l e . . . a l w a y s i s t h e key word. No, I s a i d a l w a y s s i t t i n g on a t a b l e and she said, "Yes, sitting on e x a c t l y t h e same t a b l e . . . t h a t was the p o i n t . I t o l d h e r t h a t was what I was l o o k i n g f o r , so she a n s w e r e d t h a t one r i g h t . I w a s n ' t g o i n g down p o i n t by point, but when she s a i d something r i g h t you want to reinforce i t . R- S u r e . I'm j u s t g o i n g t o t a k e you t h r o u g h a sequence h e r e i f you d o n ' t m i n d . I n t h e r e s p o n s e t o 23> t h e s t u d e n t comes up with, "And t h e n t h e d r y w i t h t h e w i n d was the second, the wet was t h e t h i r d , and t h e wet w i t h t h e w i n d was t h e v e r y l a s t . I t was h o r r i b l e and t h e s e a r e my g r a p h s t o show i t . " The s t u d e n t r a i s e d an i s s u e t h a t you respond t o i n 24, you r e f e r t o f l a t n e s s o f t h e g r a p h s . The s t u d e n t has p o i n t e d o u t t h e g r a p h s t o you and you....You t h e n l e f t this a r e a and you r e t u r n e d t o t h e f a n i n 2 5 , so the fan j u s t s o r t o f s a t l i k e i t i s now. J - W e l l , she had no r e a s o n f o r what she had done w h i c h was not r i g h t . She had done s o m e t h i n g w r o n g . What h e r c u r v e s looked like was this...she had points going up like t h i s . . . t h e y went l i k e t h a t and she w o u l d draw her l i n e and after (laugh) I don't e x a g g e r a t e the a b r u p t shift. I'm j u s t n o t u s e d t o t h i n g s g o i n g l i k e t h a t .  131  R-  So  there  was  no  way....  J - There was no way she was t h e r e ' s no r e a l p o i n t i n . . .  that,  so  J - I f I had n o t been j u d g i n g h e r a t t h e t i m e , I would spent more t i m e on t h a t p o i n t . I f I had been w a n t i n g d i s c u s s h e r e x p e r i m e n t and t a k e h e r f a r t h e r , I w o u l d s p e n t a g r e a t d e a l o f t i m e on t h a t , but I t h i n k I d i d t h e k i d w i t h the h o t a i r b a l l o o n , as a m a t t e r o f f a c t . got c o n s i d e r a b l y more o f t h a t s o r t o f t r e a t m e n t , but did n o t b e c a u s e I w a n t e d t o see what she had done and we went t o o t h e r t h i n g s .  have to have with He she then  R-  So were you  g o i n g back i n  going to  justify  25?  R- The r e a s o n I was i n t e r e s t e d a b o u t 25 b e i n g t h e f a n a f t e r that, i t had seemed t h a t i s what you had l e f t e a r l i e r . I was w o n d e r i n g . . . . s i t t i n g on t h e t a b l e . . . t h e f a n came up in response.... J- I think she was g e t t i n g back to her usual presentation that was a l l . She did have a presentation. I t j u s t wasn't a memorized l i n e . R- So t h a t l i n e , w o u l d you s u s p e c t , t h a t same l i n e t o t h e j u d g e s .  she  J - I t h i n k more or l e s s . than I !  will  Well,  you  line line  would t r y to know t h a t  of of give  better  R- ( c h u c k l e ! ) Okay, i n t h e s e c t i o n 27 t o 30, t h i s i s one we mentioned e a r l i e r . T h a t was t h e b i t a b o u t t h e d a n g e r . You were w o r r i e d a b o u t t h a t i t w a s n ' t i n s u l a t e d w e l l enough as referred to. T h e r e a r e two p o s s i b i l i t i e s i t seems t o me: the s t u d e n t b e i n g e x p o s e d t o an e l e c t r i c a l h a z a r d without sufficient s u p e r v i s i o n w h i c h y o u ' v e m e n t i o n e d as being a concern. T h e r e ' s a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t y when you a s k e d , " D i d you have much h e l p w i t h t h i s ? " , t h a t i t was too much assistance. I mean.... J - Oh, no, no, no!!! I t was e x a c t l y t h a t t h a t t h i s t h i n g was s o r t o f h a n g i n g open.  t h o u g h t you  know  R- So you w e r e n ' t p u t t i n g t h e s t u d e n t i n a s i t u a t i o n where if she a n s w e r s , "Yes, I d i d have p a r e n t s h e l p me", the s t u d e n t m i g h t g o . . . i s u s e d t o s a y i n g no b e c a u s e p e o p l e t a k e that as a n e g a t i v e — t o o much p a r e n t a l help, but realize that she should have had p a r e n t a l h e l p because of the d a n g e r o f e l e c t r o c u t i o n . Okay, so t h i s i s t h e d a n g e r . J - Yes. The k i d won't e l e c t r o c u t e h e r s e l f . You c a n ' t k i l l y o u r s e l f w i t h 110 u n l e s s you make s p e c i a l e f f o r t s , but you can s u r e h u r t y o u r s e l f — j o l t !  132  R- We're getting up t o the l a s t sequence—a very i n t e r e s t i n g sequence. 31 t o 3 5 , what was g o i n g on t h e r e ? We've g o t , " t h e w a t e r was e v a p o r a t i n g a l l t h e t i m e , so t h e c o n d i t i o n was r e a l l y c h a n g i n g a l l t h e t i m e " . . . a n d 34. J - "The water was evaporating a l l the time, so t h e condition was r e a l l y c h a n g i n g a l l t h e t i m e . . . " I t ' s not. That's a l l r i g h t ! R-  ...it's  J - No. state.  not?  I t ' s e v a p o r a t i n g a l l the t i m e — i t ' s That's a d i s t i n c t i o n .  called  R- Were you l o o k i n g f o r h e r t o come up w i t h s t e a d y  steady  state?  J- Certainly not. My students don't understand the distinction b e t w e e n e q u i l i b r i u m and s t e a d y state until a f t e r t h e y ' v e had i t b l u d g e o n e d i n t o them o v e r a p e r i o d o f a year. I wonder i f t h e y u n d e r s t a n d i t now? R- You were l o o k i n g f o r some i d e a o f c o n t r o l s ? J - No. I r e a l i z e t h e r e was a c r i t i c i s m o f t h i s experiment that i t d i d n ' t have any c o n t r o l s . T h a t ' s what Donna t o l d me. I said, " I d o n ' t know what y o u mean. There's been somebody t r y i n g t o w r i t e a r e c i p e f o r d o i n g s c i e n c e and i t a l w a y s seems t o i n v o l v e c o n t r o l l e d e x p e r i m e n t . " And one o f the things I pointed o u t t o h e r was that I am a professional scientist and f o r t h e k i n d o f s c i e n c e I do, i t ' s i m p o s s i b l e t o have a c o n t r o l . A l l I do i s go o u t and look at stars, and s t a r A, i f i t i s truly wonderful, is different from any d i f f e r e n t s t a r i n t h e w o r l d s . Star T e c o r b o r w h i c h i s one o f my f a v o r i t e s t a r s . . . t h e r e a i n ' t no other star like t h a t and I c a n ' t do e x p e r i m e n t s on i t . A s t r o n o m e r s d o n ' t do e x p e r i m e n t s . We s i m p l y o b s e r v e . This narrow straight jacket idea that there is a scientific method that i n v o l v e s t h i n g s l i k e c o n t r o l l e d experiments i s just wrong. I'm s o r r y I d o n ' t pay any a t t e n t i o n t o i t . Donna f e e l s t h e same way, incidentally. B u t I j u s t won't pay any attention to i t . I ' v e g o t t o e v a l u a t e what was done on i t s own m e r i t s and n o t by somebody's, e x t e r n a l person's norm. M e a n i n g t h e norms were s e t up by a nonscientist. The scientific method, as you know, is a c r e a t i o n o f one s m a l l b r a n c h o f p h i l o s o p h y . R- R i g h t . And as many who c h a l l e n g e t h a t i s Kuhn. I'm just going t o go a t you one more t i m e a b o u t t h i s because you seem t o keep g o i n g a t i t i n 3 3 , 34 and 35. So t h e condition was r e a l l y c h a n g i n g a l l t h e t i m e . I t was i n 34 t h e r e and t h a t was.... J - W e l l , she's not going  t o come up w i t h s t e a d y  state.  R- B u t you were l o o k i n g f o r h e r t o come up w i t h w h e t h e r she 133  was  aware o f any  problems i n t h a t .  J - Yes, yes. D i d she have any s p e c u l a t i o n s . I w o u l d have told h e r a b o u t s t e a d y s t a t e i f she was i n c l i n e d a t a l l t o go i n t o i t . You know, i s she s a i d , " I n e v e r t h o u g h t a b o u t that" or "What c o u l d do t h a t ? " I f she w o u l d have a s k e d a q u e s t i o n , I w o u l d have a n s w e r e d . R- You ended the i n t e r v i e w w i t h a s e r i e s of statements, r e a l l y I g u e s s s t a r t i n g a t 39 s o r t o f s t a r t s i t o f f . Well, a c t u a l l y even l a t e r t h a n t h a t . . . I g u e s s 4 1 , 4 2 , and t h e n i n 42 you h a v e a bunch o f s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e r e . What was in y o u r mind as you made t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s ? J - I'm a l w a y s i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . In your...oh, I'm p o i n t i n g t o her r e p o r t . . . i n y o u r . . . i n o t h e r words her b i b l i o g r a p h y i n t h e r e . . . R-  Right.  J-  In near  R-  Right.  40.  J- I didn't ( c o u l d n ' t make i t o u t ) . . . I d i d n ' t r e a d of these t h i n g s .  any  R- So t h i s o r i g i n a l i t y o f t h e i d e a you had some... i s what I'm c a l l i n g o r i g i n a l i t y , t h a t i s what you were a f t e r ? J-  That's  right.  R- And that's why you o b v i o u s l y I ' m p u t t i n g words in your mouth so j u s t t e l l me i f I'm w r o n g . . . i s t h a t my hunch was when I l o o k e d a t t h e s a m p l e , o k a y , you had some c o n c e r n there. Today when you m e n t i o n e d t h a t you t a l k e d t o this o t h e r g i r l f r o m Summerland.... J - ...and f o u n d o u t not i d e n t i c a l . . .  t h a t she  had  done v e r y  s i m i l a r work, i f  R- . . . w h i c h r e i n f o r c e d y o u r okay, g r e a t . And i n 42 you go, "You d o n ' t ....on s c i e n c e s , you d o n ' t r e a l l y have to use v e r y much o u t s i d e k n o w l e d g e t o s t a r t w i t h " , and then you go on e x p l a i n i n g f r o m t h e r e . Why d i d you end i t t h a t way? What's y o u r p u r p o s e f o r e n d i n g t h a t way? J - I t h i n k t h a t i n t e r v i e w went a f u l l one o f t h e r e a s o n s .  15  minutes,  R- R i g h t . Okay. Is there anything s t a t e m e n t , any p u r p o s e s t o t h o s e ?  in  J-  "You  No  conscious  ones,  no.  Let's 134  see.  your  that's closing  know a  fair  amount a b o u t i t . I f you d e s i g n e d t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , you're doing fine." Oh, you're wondering about the " i f you designed this experiment". I have f u n n y locutions and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g s i n i s t e r about t h a t s t a t e m e n t . R-  A c t u a l l y , I w a s n ' t p i c k i n g on  that.  J - For instance, I have a l o c u t i o n t h a t r e a l l y bugs the h e l l out o f p e o p l e . I w i l l sometimes ask q u e s t i o n s i n the c l a r i t i v e and i t ' s s o m e t h i n g my w i f e has no t r o u b l e w i t h ! R- What I was l o o k i n g f o r t h e r e , i s t h a t i t seems t o me i n any i n t e r v i e w t h e r e ' s a b e g i n n i n g , m i d d l e and t h e end. I'm j u s t w o n d e r i n g i f y o u ' r e c l o s i n g o f f the i n t e r v i e w , trying to leave t h e s t u d e n t w i t h a good f e e l i n g , that sort of thing. Does t h a t go t h r o u g h y o u r mind i n t h i s i n t e r v i e w ? J - E x c e p t i n t h e c a s e o f t h e n u c l e a r power k i d , I w o u l d say t h a t ' s a l w a y s i n my m i n d . I want t o l e a v e t h e k i d f e e l i n g t h a t t h a t went f i n e . R- I t h i n k t h a t came t o me I f e l t t h a t you were v e r y child's feelings. J- Well and t h e  t h a t was plastics  (DISCUSSION OF  through your whole c o n v e r s a t i o n . c o n c e r n e d a b o u t not h u r t i n g the  o n l y a p r o b l e m w i t h the k i d . Nobody c o u l d h u r t  n u c l e a r power his feelings.  kid  PLASTICS)  JThe k i d w i t h t h e h o t a i r b a l l o o n s as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , d i d get a p r i z e i n t h a t c a t e g o r y p a r t i a l l y because I think in the j u d g i n g dynamics because of h i s c o n t r a s t to the k i d i n t h e p l a s t i c s who had s i m i l a r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h the other judges. R-  Interesting!  J - They d i d n ' t l i k e h i s a t t i t u d e and I t h i n k t h a t I t e n d t o judge the kid. The o t h e r j u d g e s I t h i n k a r e less open a b o u t i t , but I t h i n k t h e y do i t t o o ! R- Y e s , second D i d you  okay. Back t o t h i s p r o j e c t — D y a n a ' s . I f she g o t a class, i s t h a t what you r a n k e d h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y ? have her second p r i z e .  J- I t h i n k she was c l o s e t o f i r s t . I think hers, as I recall and t h e f u e l v a l u e were c o n s i d e r e d d e f i n i t e l y the two class e x h i b i t s and we had t o s o r t o f c a s t about for the third. The two p i n h o l e c a m e r a s were c o n s i d e r e d along w i t h the h o t a i r b a l l o o n w h i c h d i d t a k e t h e t h i r d . We had a l i t t l e b i t o f j u d g i n g ... there. I d o n ' t know i f you w a n t e d K i t i n on t h a t , b u t i t w o r k e d f i n e . R-  No,  no.  That  was  fine. 135  Sorry!  I  asked  at  the  beginning, how d i d you make y o u r j u d g e m e n t , and you said you made i t b a s i c a l l y on t h e e x h i b i t . I'm j u s t g o i n g to ask some q u e s t i o n s now t h a t I d i d n ' t ask the beginning b e c a u s e I d i d n ' t want t o . . . J - Okay, l e t me be a l i t t l e f r e e r on t h a t . I was really i m p r e s s e d w i t h the o r i g i n a l i t y o f t h e g i r l who d i d t h e wood burning. I t was c l e a r she had n o t done t h e w h o l e e x h i b i t herself, but she r e a d i l y s a i d t h a t and she t o l d me just what she had done as a m a t t e r o f f a c t . Now i t was clear that a k i d c o u l d n o t have e x e c u t e d t h a t . A kid could c e r t a i n l y have c o n c e i v e d i t and c a r r i e d o u t t h e e x p e r i m e n t , b u t c o u l d n o t have e x e c u t e d t h e a p p a r a t u s . But s i n c e many k i d s were u s i n g t h i n g s l i k e e l e c t r i c f a n s w h i c h t h e y d i d n ' t build, I d i d n ' t see a n y t h i n g wrong w i t h t h a t . And she d i d do a l o t o f t h e . . . w e l l she s a i d , " I d i d the cutting of that", and she e x p l a i n e d t o me....she d i d know how i t was put t o g e t h e r . F o r i n s t a n c e , where t h e r e was a l i t t l e door t h a t you had t o open up t o put t h e wood i n , w e l l , i t went between some g u i d e s . When I f i r s t l o o k e d a t that, not being a t i n s m i t h , I l o o k e d a t t h a t and t h o u g h t she had quite a s o p h i s t i c a t e d b r e a k t o make t h o s e bends so she could s l i d e the door i n . She p o i n t e d o u t t o me, "Well, that's the way t h a t f l u t e p i p e comes. We j u s t u s e d the edge o f t h e f l u t e p i p e w h i c h a l r e a d y had t h a t bend i n i t . " I thought that was pretty good. She was clearly, i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i t and i t was n o t s o m e t h i n g t h a t s h e . . . s h e s a i d , " G r a n d p a , c o u l d you make me this" and Grandpa went o f f and made something. Obviously, t h e w o r k m a n s h i p was f i n e r and he had done q u i t e a b i t o f i t , but no more t h a n I w o u l d expect. It was entirely reasonable. R-  D i d you  J-  No.  I was  R- R i g h t . hand? J-  No.  preview  So  Not  them.  i n the welcoming you  d i d n ' t get  ceremony. a c h a n c e t o see  them  before  at a l l .  R- I s e e . So w o u l d t h a t have been o f v a l u e a l o o k a t them b e f o r e h a n d ?  t o t o have  had  J - Yes. I t would have worked...I'm not sure i f i t would h a v e w o r k e d t o t h e d e t r i m e n t or the a d v a n t a g e o f the one who u l t i m a t e l y won. My s t r o n g e s t i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e girl who won i s n o t t h a t she r e a l l y knew what she was d o i n g , I t h i n k she d i d . My s t r o n g e s t i m p r e s s i o n was how incredibly painfully shy she was. How d i f f i c u l t i t was f o r her to i n t e r a c t with judges. R- And that project?  gave  her  the  edge,  136  over  let's  say,  this  J- Well, R-  I d o n ' t t h i n k t h a t ' s an  What I'm  saying  advantage.  is...empathy... i f t h a t might  J - No. No. No. W e l l , I p r o b a b l y have a l i t t because I have one k i d who i s o b v i o u s l y adepth than the o t h e r t h r e e , you know. I giving him an a d v a n t a g e o c a s s i o n a l l y . But t h i n k t h a t came i n . R-  I didn't  be....  l e b i t of t h a t socially less might lean to know, I d o n ' t  t h i n k so e i t h e r .  J- I t h i n k o r i g i n a l i t y was v e r y i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e I don't t h i n k t h a t ' s anybody's s c i e n c e f a i r e x h i b i t . In f a c t t h a t she came up w i t h a p r i c o t as t h e most c a l o r i f i c wood—that was i m p r e s s i v e ! I f a i l e d t o ask h e r one q u e s t i o n w h i c h I meant to ask, but she s o r t o f d i v e r t e d b e f o r e she g o t to it. I don't know how she w e i g h t e d h e r wood. I really w a n t e d t o know how she w e i g h t e d h e r wood and I n e v e r found out. Do you know? R- Y e s . Somebody.... I l i s t e d t o t h a t . I ' l l l o o k i t up f o r you. I c a n ' t remember o f f hand. I h e a r d h e r on t h e t a p e . I l i s t e n e d t o t h e s e two p r o j e c t s . . . . u n f o r t u n a t e l y , I had a t e c h n o l o g i c a l problem. I was g o i n g t o do wood b u r n i n g f o r t h e t r a n s c r i p t , but i t was l u c k y I h a d . . . . J- Well,  she  R- And i t So, from obviously project to  had  a very  low  voice,  too.  was v e r y h a r d i n t h a t s e n s e , too, to p i c k what we've been t a l k i n g a b o u t here, you comparing when you make up your mind, other p r o j e c t s .  up. are this  J- Well, no. I was o n l y c o m p a r i n g t h e two a c t u a l l y . They were c l e a r l y b e t t e r i n my mind b e f o r e I went through the judging dynamic t h r o u g h the i n t e r a c t i o n of the o t h e r t h r e e judges. When I went i n , I t h i n k I was t h e f o u r t h t o j u d g e i n to that, t h e y had a l r e a d y c o n c l u d e d t h e same t h i n g t h a t t h o s e were t h e o n l y two t h a t were i n s e r i o u s consideration f o r the f i r s t p l a c e . R- So, now you're judging you h a v e . You're not g o i n g  on t h e b a s i s o f the 8 t o o t h e r f a i r s I saw.  projects  J - Oh no. I was v e r y i m p r e s s e d w i t h t h e s e . I thought j u s t in our group of j u n i o r e x p e r i m e n t s t h e q u a l i t y was much above what I had s e e n e v e n a t t h e higher level. Forget about the. f a c t t h a t i t was junior intermediate level. These were much b e t t e r . R- But i f t h e y had been l o w e r , you w o u l d have s t i l l j u s t w i t h i n the group. I s t h a t r i g h t ?  137  judged  J- Well, y e s . I d i d s e e one o t h e r e x h i b i t d u r i n g t h e t i m e I was j u d g i n g . T h a t was t h e o c e a n waves e x h i b i t . But I don't t h i n k t h a t I c o n s i d e r e d i t i n t h e same way at a l l . I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , t h e k i d was o l d e r . I t was u n r e l a t e d i n subject matter. I t h i n k t h o s e 8 were t h e o n l y ones on my mind. R- I n y o u r i n t e r v i e w were y o u c o n f i r m i n g a j u d g e m e n t ? you go up and f a i r l y q u i c k l y g e t an i m p r e s s i o n o r were making a judgement.  Did you  J - S i n c e I h a v e n ' t . . . . i n a d v a n c e , I d i d n ' t r e a l l y know what t h e e x h i b i t was. The t i m e I g o t t h e r e t o j u d g e h e r was t h e f i r s t t i m e I had b'een t h e r e . What d i d I n o t i c e a b o u t h e r ? T h e r e was t h e f a c t t h a t she had on t h e r m a l u n d e r w e a r , w h i c h I didn't comment on a t a l l ! I d i d n ' t know she was from C r o f t o n House o r t h e r e w o u l d n ' t have been any r e a l p r o b l e m . Some o f t h e s e k i d s a r e p o o r , you know! I d o n ' t make any comment a t a l l a b o u t t h e i r c l o t h e s , you c a n p u t them o f f . So I didn't say a n y t h i n g . I gather she i s n ' t poor. Anyway, I d i d n ' t know what h e r e x h i b i t was u n t i l she t o l d me and t h e n I l o o k e d a t h e r b o a r d s and h e r g r a p h s and so forth. R- Do you t h i n k i f you had p r e v i e w e d t h e e x h i b i t y o u w o u l d h a v e been c o n f i r m i n g a j u d g e m e n t ? J - I t h i n k so, because I t h i n k t h a t v i s u a l l y her e x h i b i t was p r o b a b l y t h e most a p p e a l i n g i f n o t t h e b e s t . Maybe that p r o f e s s i o n a l y p r e p a r e d e x h i b i t was b e t t e r , but hers was v e r y a p p e a l i n g . R- So, we were t a l k i n g e a r l i e r how you c a n p i c k p r o j e c t by g o i n g t h r o u g h i t and t h i n g s l i k e t h a t .  a  good  J- That's a l l I taped i s i t . B e c a u s e I t a l k e d t o h e r some more. T h a t ' s how I knew h e r name was Dachmar. R- Y a h , just J-  that's a l l t h a t was on t h e t a p e . I g u e s s you Do y o u use a p r e s e t f o r m a t f o r y o u r q u e s t i o n i n g ?  No, c e r t a i n l y n o t .  R- So what i n i t i a t e s y o u r  questions?  J - I s i m p l y go i n and s a y I'm g o i n g t o i n t e r a c t w i t h this kid and f i n d o u t how good a k i d t h i s i s . Remember I'm judging a k i d . The s u b j e c t we're t a l k i n g a b o u t i s the e x h i b i t a t hand and t h a t i s a f o c u s . I know t h e k i d s h o u l d be ready t o t a l k a b o u t i t and I c a n j u d g e t h e k i d p r e t t y e a s i l y t h a t way. R- I w r o t e down h e r e . . . y o u ' r e g o i n g t o o b j e c t t o some o f t h e words I u s e d . I saw a s e q u e n c e i n t h i s one interview where you had a b e g i n n i n g and t h e n y o u had an e n d i n g and 138  then you went a f t e r c e r t a i n t h i n g s . You went after the test d e s i g n how i t was s e t up and went t h r o u g h what I use t h e word ' c o n t r o l ' h e r e where we r e f e r r e d t o c o n v e c t i o n . J - I would c a l l t h a t care of d e s i g n . That i s a matter of design, b u t I t h i n k c o n t r o l i s one t h a t r e l a t e s t o having some s t a n d a r d t o w h i c h t h i n g s a r e c o m p a r e d . R- Okay, super. I u s e d t h a t a g a i n down h e r e t h r e e t i m e s . Good! Well, I was checking i f I mean there was a possibility t h a t m i g h t have some s e t way w h i l e you were going through. Okay, w e l l , I t h i n k I j u s t have one more here. A b i g one f o r y o u r h e r e . D i d you use t h e j u d g i n g c r i t e r i a p r o v i d e d by t h e o r g a n i z e r s ? J-  No.  R-  Yes.  But  I knew t h o s e  And  why  i n advance.  d i d n ' t you?  J - B e c a u s e I'm u n a b l e t o w o r k w i t h t h o s e . I don't b e l i e v e t h e k i d s w i l l work t o them and t h a t was verified. You'll f i n d t h e k i d s d i d n ' t pay any a t t e n t i o n t o t h o s e c r i t e r i a a t a l l and so I d i d n ' t use them. R- So you say some....?  the k i d s .  What s o r t o f c r i t e r i a  do you  have  J - You know o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a a r e v e r y h a r d t o come by. Originality i s very important. Depth of understanding w h i c h you can a s k o f t h o s e k i d s . They a r e n o t t o o young t o have deep understanding. I have n e v e r f e l t t h a t I was pushing the k i d too f a r . When I came t o t h e l i m i t s o f t h e kid's knowledge, I knew I was t h e r e . We w o u l d go talk about another area. I t was f i n e and I d o n ' t t h i n k I g o t a kid who said, " I d o n ' t know" and s u b s e q u e n t l y said, "I d o n ' t see what you mean". I don't t h i n k I've ever pushed a kid to that point. I f they get i n t o t h a t , t h e y ' r e f e e l i n g down and i t ' s a v e r y bad t h i n g t o h i t . You've l o s t r a p o r e . I t h i n k I had good r a p o r e w i t h Dyana, b u t she i s a very p e r s o n a b l e g i r l so s h e ' l l g e t a l o n g w i t h most a n y o n e . R- I'm just going to c l o s e up now w i t h what I call a reflection o f j u d g e m e n t and i n v i t a t i o n . How do you view t h e p r o j e c t now? A r e you happy a f t e r g o i n g t h r o u g h t h i s ? J-  I t h i n k we  p i c k e d t h e t o p two  right.  R- Good, so my next q u e s t i o n i s how do you view your judgement of the p r o j e c t . . . o b v i o u s l y you're satisfied. Good! T h a t ' s g r e a t ! I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g y o u ' d l i k e t o add? J - I m i g h t n o t e t h a t t h e r e were j u d g e s i n our g r o u p and I f o r g e t which ones. Maybe J u d g e A who a c t u a l l y k e p t point t o t a l s and came t o a i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s , s o . . . y o u know, i f you p l a y by r e s u l t s , p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n t o 139  the p o i n t s w o u l d n o t have done me any good. If I were p i c k i n g k i d s f o r a team t o t a k e t o a s c i e n c e f a i r , I would evaluate them on my own g u t f e e l i n g . I should a l s o tell you t h a t I'm v e r y s o p h i s t i c a t e d i n p i c k i n g v e r y good k i d s . I ' v e been r e c r u i t i n g h e r e a t Simon F r a s e r f o r d e c a d e s and I can t e l l i n i n t e r v i e w i n g a k i d , u s u a l l y how good t h a t k i d is. I don't know why, but I can. I get very strong i m p r e s s i o n s and i t ' s n o t a n y t h i n g e x t r a - s e n s o r y or a n y t h i n g s u b t l e . . . I s h o u l d n ' t say e x t r a - s e n s o r y , of course i t ' s not extra-sensory!....it's not s u b t l e at all...it's very strong. I get the f e e l i n g w i t h these k i d s t h a t t h a t k i d has g o t i t ! I want t h a t k i d . The k i d s can a l s o s e n s e t h a t t h e y ' r e w a n t e d when I d e t e c t t h i s ! I would take t h i s g i r l f o r i n s t a n c e . I w i l l p r e d i c t r i g h t now t h a t t h a t g i r l w i l l be a big success i n u n i v e r s i t y . The Summerland girl certainly has a l l the stuff t o be a big success at u n i v e r s i t y , except the s o c i a l s k i l l s . I ' d l i k e t o see some exposure of that g i r l to a d u l t s . And i f she were exposed to a d u l t s and w a n t e d t o go i n t o t h e sciences, and they don't a l l , t h e n I ' d l i k e t o see her as a s c i e n c e s t u d e n t . I t h i n k t h a t s c i e n c e i s one o f t h e t h i n g s she ought to explore. I doubt t h a t Dyana w i l l be a s c i e n c e student. She has p e r s o n a l s k i l l s a l r e a d y d e v e l o p e d i n p o i s e which w i l l p r o b a b l y e q u i p h e r t o do o t h e r t h i n g s . I s u s p e c t she comes f r o m a s o c i a l stratum which w i l l not esteem going i n t o s c i e n c e h i g h l y anyway and she m i g h t do s o m e t h i n g e l s e . Do you know a n y t h i n g a b o u t h e r p a r e n t s ? R-Nothing at a l l . J - She's o b v i o u s l y D u t c h by h e r name, a l t h o u g h dark. Maybe o n l y h e r f a t h e r i s D u t c h . R-  Thanks v e r y much f o r y o u r  time.  140  she  i s very  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097212/manifest

Comment

Related Items