Lessons Learned by eNZE8tc

VIEWS: 41 PAGES: 23

									               Wisconsin Science Education Foundation
                        Program Committee
                     Badger State Science & Engineering Fair
                            Lessons Learned – 2008
                            Respectfully submitted April 4, 2008
                         Patti Bringe-Blomquist, Executive Director
The purpose of the lessons learned report is to provide a tool by which all members of the
Program Committee and selected volunteers may openly express their viewpoints. These
viewpoints will serve as reference points for improvements to the program offered by WiSEF to
State of Wisconsin high school students interested in pursuing science, technology, engineering,
or math and utilizing the Badger State Science & Engineering Fair as a means to promote their
interest and compete with others to strengthen their skills.

Report mechanics: Each respondent will appear on a separate page in the order of the Program
Committee responsibility with an Executive Director summary at the conclusion of the report. The
respondent’s lessons learned comments will be highlighted after the statements for Board
reference and discussion.

Information: A request for information detailing each chairperson role and responsibility went out
a several weeks before the fair. A second request for Role/Responsibly plus event day feedback
was sent 03/16/08 and due 04/04/08. A third request for Role/Responsibly and a second request
for feedback was sent 03/31/08 due 04/04/08. The request was sent to: Lori Stempski, Jim
Barnes, Jim Jaeschke, Susan Reidy, Miriam Clifford, Gary Stresman, Gena Cooper, Jon Jensen,
Michael Farmer, Neil Paton, William Mak, Jeff Chan, and Maggie Teliska. Sponsors were called for
feedback and thanked individually, Maria Bundy (Governor’s Office), Steve Roehm (GE) & Sandra
Lomeli (GE), Paul Sara (Clear Channel), and Stan Jaskolski (MU).

                                                     Table of Contents

Program Committee Lessons Learned ...................................................... 2
  Program Director - Michael Farmer ............................................................................. 2
  Judge Chairperson – Patti Bringe-Blomquist ............................................................... 5
  Judge Trainer – Miriam Clifford ................................................................................... 7
  Marquette University Liaison & Registration Assistant - Lori Stempski ....................... 9
  Volunteers - Ken & Mary Fonstad .............................................................................. 10
  Sponsors Feedback ................................................................................................... 14
  Judges Feedback ....................................................................................................... 15

Things that went well ............................................................................ 19
Meeting Notes – M. Farmer & P. Bringe-Blomquist................................. 23



* Updates from last distribution
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned



Program Committee Lessons Learned

Program Director - Michael Farmer

When I took the position as the Director of the BSSEF, I felt that this first year would be more
listening and learning than decision making and directing, which for the most part it was. Part of
the reason I felt this way is that I did not want my previous position as a fair director to prejudice
how this fair was being conducted. I also was very concerned about my lack of computer skills
but I was told not to worry about this; that it would not be a factor. This was a drawback and did
diminish to some extent my contribution to the success of the program. In my defense, I will say
that I have learned a lot more about the computer this past year.

I also presumed that all of the Committee Members whose names appeared next to a
titled segment of the Fair were totally responsible for that portion of the Fair, e.g. Judging
Coordinator would handle all aspects of the judging. This would entail mailing out to the judges,
asking them to judge again this coming year, create a master list of judges with their selected
categories, recruit more judges if necessary, confirm their judging times, assign them to a team,
send them the necessary paperwork, select captains, set up the orientation program, etc. This
was not the case with this year’s Fair. I see a Science Fair broken into a number of interrelated
segments or defined areas: Administration, Physical set-up, Registration, Judging, SRC/IRB,
Awards, ISEF Affiliation & Compliance. The person in charge of each of these areas should be
responsible for everything that takes place within that area. They cannot do only a part of the
required duties and leave the rest to the Program Committee to pick up and complete what is not
done. This was a major problem this year in two of the seven segments of the Fair. If a
committee person needs more assistance to complete their assigned responsibilities that can be
arranged.

Part of the reason some of these problems occurred is that the previous Director did so much of
the work in setting up and running the earlier fairs that the Program Committee was not fully
utilized as it could have been, therefore, limiting what they saw as their role in their particular
segment of the Fair. I came into the Fair with a totally different out look as to what I thought
their role was or should be. This is by no means a reflection on the previous Director. He,
because of his abilities and time available, made everyone’s job on the Committee much easier.
This year was a transition year and these things were bound to happen no matter how much
planning was done or how many meetings were held.

I made assumptions about things, even after six months of meetings, that I still felt were correct
assumptions only to find out that I was totally wrong about them. The classic example was in the
Awards area. I thought the Awards Chairman was in charge of all awards, Category and Special
Awards. I did not realize until just before the Fair that he had nothing to do with Special Awards
that were non-ISEF affiliated. These awards (there were only a few) were just sort of floating out
there waiting for someone to put them in their place. These non-ISEF Special Awards did get put
into one overall Special Awards Package and now all of the Special Awards, ISEF and non-ISEF
Special Awards will fall under the jurisdiction of the Awards Chairman which I thought was the
case all along.

Another aspect of this transition year that created some concern and anguish was the fact that we
introduced some changes or attempted some changes, of which the full impact of, or
consequences of, were not realized until Fair day. The example I will use here is the Awards
Ceremony. The Awards Ceremony had been talked about in a number of meetings and changes
were suggested. There did not seem to be a problem with any of the changes until Fair day when
it was suddenly realized that the way the awards were physically written up by the Chairman
made it impossible for the awards to be included into the new computer Awards Program. This

D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 2 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
was so much of a concern that I thought we were going to have to delay the Awards Program
or cancel it. I thought I would have to make an announcement that your award is in the mail.
Ultimately a solution was suggested by the Judging Chairman and implemented by our computer
tech person, who I believe should receive a very nice Thank You gift. Had he not been able to
reconfigure all the awards that were on his computer so that I could read them off in a way that
made it look like we were in total control of things, I am not sure what we would have done next.

We had a number of other lesser changes, some prove to be worthwhile, others not so good, and
some should be changed again. In summary, the two major areas that caused the most
problems were:

1.        The Program Committee not having a clear and concise description of what each of their
          roles should be.

2.        Making changes to one part of the Fair without realizing the impact of this change on
          another part of the Fair.

I believe that many of the components of this Fair can be standardized, especially the paperwork
portions. Judges and student directions, confirmation letters, the format for exhibitors and
judges list, etc. can all be standardized. The only time they need to be changed is when ISEF
changes rules or regulations and then that may only be a partial change. From Fair to Fair, all we
need to change on all of these documents are the yearly date changes. Many of these documents
do not need dates and can be used for the next year saving use some duplication cost.

I noted on Fair day some things that need to be addressed before next year’s Fair:

         Extra materials are needed in both the judging and registration area. Folders, pertinent
          paperwork, blank nametags, etc.

         More copies of judges list in alpha order, more copies of exhibitors list in alpha order at
          both registration table and judges table.

         The judging area needs more trained help. I have a suggestion for a solution to the
          problems we encountered in this area.

         I now have a better idea on how to use volunteers. They need more specific assignments
          and better use of their skills.

         Eliminate the Adult Lounge and the Adult Program. They are not worth the time we spent
          setting them up.

         We can eliminate some of the AMU rooms, the adult lounge and room 368. This will save
          some cost next year.

         We need a system to handle walk-in registrations and change of category. A simple piece
          of paper entitled “Change of Category/Walk-In” would have save a lot of time
          and simplified things a for a volunteer to handle. Instead I was the one going around
          making sure these people were on all the right list.

         Take the floor plan (map) out of the booklet. It was very confusing as it did not match the
          actual setup. I suggest a map be done two days before the Fair that will be at least 80%
          to 90% more accurate. Replace the map in the booklet with the categories, their numbers
          and their colors.




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 3 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
         Take the Display Booth idea and either rename it or eliminate it as it confused everyone
          but the Program Committee. Everyone thought that the Display Booth area was the
          Exhibitor’s area.

         Let’s have the categories on the BSSEF Web Site match the categories we list in the
          booklet and all the other materials we produce for our Fair. I was amazed that these
          listings were different.

         Bigger exhibit cards are needed at the tables and put down in a way that they are hard to
          remove. The names and numbers need to be larger. This was a problem! The judges had
          a hard time finding them and reading them. I suggest we do two of them, one for the
          table, one on the project and much bigger.

         Extra copies of the Special Award Selection sheet needs to be available along with ISEF
          forms 1 & 1A. I had to run off about 25 copies of each.

         We need to be sure that the computer that has all of the inputting of the awards has a
          viable printer. That was not the case this year! This will allow for a “hard copy” for the
          Director’s use at the Awards Ceremony.

In closing, I believe the Fair went very well. The problems for the most part were not evident to
the students, parents or public. Everyone worked very hard on Fair day and I want to thank
them for their time and effort..

I do believe that we need to restructure the Program Committee so that each member assigned
to a designated section realizes that they are responsible for everything within that section, not
just part of it. These responsibilities will be spelled out in detail. I see my role as one of defining
these responsibilities and making sure they are being implemented at the appropriate times. I
will, if necessary, seek to find help and or replacements for the Committee. I will handle all
administration and setup for the Fair. I will be the one of the contacts with ISEF for the affiliation
process. I will be one of the contacts with Marquette University. What I cannot do is some of the
computer spreadsheet and many of the computer projects that Patti had to do this year. Way to
much was put on her because of the problems discussed above. This cannot happen again. This
has to be resolved. We either need a very knowledgeable part time computer person or the
Program Committees has to assume more responsibility, which is my suggestion, or maybe a
combination of both.

I did enjoy my renewed involvement with the Science Fair. It was great to work with some old
friends and to meet new dedicated people. I would be willing to serve again with one stipulation.

Mike Farmer




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 4 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned

Judge Chairperson – Patti Bringe-Blomquist

 Event Preparation issues
          o Sponsors have been very generous and gracious with their time, talent &
             resources.
          o Little to no information was available or shared from the previous year to plan or
             execute this year causing frustration by all members in planning and knowing what
             to plan for.
          o Unexpected tasks and efforts cropped up continually
          o More volunteers are needed with computer, coordination, & administrative skills.
          o Previous Program Committee ‘Chair people’ did task level work
          o Although many meetings occurred, several areas lacked preparation on event day.
          o No one was assigned or available to track the projects, students, judges, or
             communication with these groups or the general public.
          o No one was assigned fair publicity, photography, or videography
          o Accounting process needs were discovered shortly before event day.
 Day of issues/thoughts
          o Registration went well however late comers did cause concern.
          o Late arrival of paperwork remains an issue
          o Potential conflict of interest - unannounced independently BSSEF selected specialty
             awards without judge or committee discussion by Awards chair.
          o Havoc at judging assignment due to above creating reassignment issues, judge
             project assignments being missed, and confusion at judge registration
          o Project Category changes on day of event and lack of procedure to deal with issue.
             Kids moved projects or renumbered so judges could not find them thus may have
             missed out on judging.
          o Exhibitors failed to return for afternoon judging and missed BEST-of-SHOW and
             Specialty judging.
          o Judges were very diligent and tried hard to be very fair to the exhibitors. Several
             commented that projects should be separated into different rooms so judging would
             be smoother.
          o Conflict of interest – During judging a teacher/program member entered exhibit
             hall, talked with judges and allowed an unauthorized person to wonder about.
          o Awards Ceremony did not follow weeks of communication and sponsors were less
             than happy they were unable to present their award (Governor’s award, ASQ
             Award, Blomquist Award, and GE was very concerned certificates were not ready
             when names were called)
          o Little of the Awarding process was prepared in advance and too much of the day to
             complete resulted in a late arrival of the awards. Much of this process could be
             done in advance. Such as envelopes addressed, checks prepared, and award
             assembly.
          o Need more trained volunteers.
          o Volunteers available worked diligently to make everything work smoothly.
          o Day is way too long. Perhaps survey exhibitors/parents on options for next year.
          o Communication between teams was chaotic and lines of authority were not honored
             causing parental complaints due to cross-information.
          o Data entry went well but mostly un-needed. Needs not clearly identified and/or
             communicated.
          o Siblings of exhibitors should be encouraged to remain offsite until the public
             viewing.
          o Public viewing should occur earlier in the day.
 Event Wrap-up issues
          o Awarding issues have taken over a week to resolve and some remain unaddressed.



D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 5 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
                o    ISEF practices, policies, procedures still remain largely unknown despite several
                     requests.




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 6 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
Judge Trainer – Miriam Clifford

I have 3 main suggestions for next year:
a. Revise the judging registration (check-in) process. Perhaps 1 or 2 people could be in charge of
recruiting judges and handling the registration. Make afternoon judges who judge in the morning check
in at the table a second time.
b. Write the schedule with specific times.
c. It is nice to have speakers at the awards ceremony, but I would like to see more emphasis placed on
the students, the names of their projects, where they came from, the names of their teachers, if they
have competed before. I think we can give them more encouragement by highlighting their efforts.
d. I would like to emphasize how much we appreciate the help we get from Marquette. They make it
possible.




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 7 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
SRC/IRB Assistant & Specialty Award Judge - Jim Jaeschke

In general I think that the registration process for the fair went very well. I wish to make the
follow comments that could help the process in the future.

I worked to help Jim Barnes with the final SRC approval.

1. We had confusion at times since the main registration process used the table numbers and the
SRC used the person's names for search ID's. We did not have an easy way to cross reference
the SRC forms with the student's table. One way would be to use a separate ID number for the
student. The data base would then have a separate field for the table number. This would also
help the issue of students and/or judges changing table numbers.

2. It could help if the students who sent in the forms in time for the SRC to approve them would
get advanced SRC approval and not need to talk to the SRC on the day of the fair. This would
reduce the line a bit, but not as much as you might think as not very many of the students
managed to complete the forms correctly.

3. If we use the manual process that we used this year, either the registration desk or a separate
station should hand the SRC forms to the student before the interview with the SRC. We need a
way for the judges to confirm that the student has been approved by the SRC.

4. It would be great if we had a real time common data base that could be accessed by all fair
officials. We would all be working on the same page.

5. It could be a significant project, but a real time saver if the forms were electronic. This would
help both the student, registration, and the SRC . We are close now as the forms are all in PDF
fill out format from the Science Service web site. It would greatly help if we could take the info
on the forms into a data base and do some error checking on the forms to catch the major
common errors. This will not eliminate the need for paper as we will need a signature form for
the students, parents, advisor, Scientist, etc. The automation method could create this signature
page for the student. All the student would need to bring to the fair would be the signature page.

6. As Jim Barnes has said many times, we need to get the forms in to the BSSEF SRC as soon as
possible. It is very difficult to do a good job on checking the forms on the day of the fair.
Anything that we can do to urge the advisors to get the forms filled out correctly and sent in as
soon as possible would be a great help.

Jim




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 8 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned


Marquette University Liaison & Registration Assistant - Lori Stempski

From: Stempski, Lori [mailto:lori.stempski@marquette.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:17 PM
To: PB; 'Michael Farmer'; 'Neil Paton'; 'Jim Barnes'; 'Miriam Clifford'; Maggie.E.Teliska@jci.com;
jim@e-s-c.org; fonstad@execpc.com; Reidy, Susan
Subject: RE: FYI
Here area few of my suggestions:

Student Activity next year…too much free time for kids.
Adult Lounge was too far out of the way. Maybe next year switch the judges caucus room and
the adult lounge.
Do not set up tables in the Lynch Lounge for parents. Encourage them to sit in the Adult Lounge
while waiting for their students.

Program:
        The schedule should be a “written” schedule similar to what we used in the 2007 fair.
The excel sheet was a bit too hard to read.
        PUT STUDENT names and projects in, they are the focus of this program.
        Less advertising

Registration Table: I thought went very smoothly.




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 9 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
Volunteers - Ken & Mary Fonstad

Mary was the day-of Judge Coordinator with Miriam Clifford and Ken was a category and Specialty
Award Judge. Their comments are combined within although a request has been made for
separate comments to determine the vantage point of the comment for improvement.

Thank you for asking for our thoughts on the 2008 Badger State Science and Engineering Fair. I
hope that these are helpful for you.

1. RECOMMENDATION:
   It might have been useful to arrange shortly after the fair for a gathering of those volunteers
   who worked the fair. The immediacy of the meeting would help make the comments be more
   relevant and the exchange of ideas between various functions is always useful.
2. The immediate problem for the judges was determining who was to judge what. Not all judges
   were clear on what they were to judge, since some had signed up for a variety of categories.
   It also appeared that some judging assignments were changed shortly before the fair. The
   listing of judging assignments that was available at the Judge Registration Table was sorted
   by category and not by the name of the judges. This made it very difficult to tell a judge what
   categories he was to judge.
   RECOMMENDATION
   Provide the Judge Registration Table with a list of judges and their assignments sorted by the
   last name of the judge.
        a. Identify on this list the Captain or Team Leader of each group of judges.
        b. Clearly identify the category to which each judge is assigned. In some cases, the judge
           was listed with the names of the categories which he indicated he could judge. While
           this latter information is useful in initially assigning judges, it is just confusing when
           the judge registers and only wants to know the category he will be judging.
        c. Identify on the list of judges the quantity of projects in each category. This is to help
           distribute sufficient judging sheets to each judge.
        d. Identify on this list whether the judge is assigned for morning judging, afternoon
           judging.
        e. A master list of the judges who have checked in must be kept at the Judge Registration
           Table. If a computer network is established, this could be shared over the network.
        f. Have judges who judge in the morning and afternoon sign in again just prior to the
           afternoon judges meeting. In this way they can receive information that is specific to
           the afternoon and be better able to meet the rest of their judging team. We will also
           have a confirmed list of judges who have signed in for the afternoon session.
        g. Provide a number of maps of the union at the Judge Registration Table. These should
           be marked to show the location of rooms for the judges. Some judges prefer a map to
           oral instructions.
3. It became difficult to provide judging packets for the judges since it was necessary to find the
   folder that was specific to each individual. Some of the judges were late arrivals and so didn’t
   have their packets. Others had picked up their judging packets earlier, but didn’t bring them
   to the day of the judging. It also seemed that the color coded scoring sheets were never
   needed, so this could be streamlined.
   RECOMMENDATION
        a. Do not personalize the judging packets. In this way each judge can be provided with a
           packet if he needs one.
        b. Have a separate packet for morning and afternoon judges. Judges who work in the
           morning and the afternoon will receive one packet when they register in the morning
           and the other when they register around noon. The appropriate time schedule should
           be provided with each packet.
        c. Be sure that the information in the Judges’ Folders is up to date. For example, remove
           references to meal tickets if meal tickets are not needed.



D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 10 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
       d. Have a personalized nametag for each judge. These should be arranged in alphabetical
           order by the last name of the judge.
       e. Provide some method of making a nametag for judges who for some reason don’t have
           a nametag. This could be done by having blank nametags and marking pens available,
           or a computer and specialized printer could be used.
       f. Provide each judge with a sheet of paper containing the names of the other judges in
           his category and the Captain or Team Leader of his category.
       g. Don’t bother with color coding the scoring sheets. This didn’t seem to matter. Instead,
           simply separate them into groups of 5 or 10 so that it is easy to provide each judge
           with an appropriate number of scoring sheets.
       h. Only the Captain or Team Leader of each judging group should be provided with a
           sheet for reporting their results. This should show the time line for the judging and the
           time that it is necessary to submit the results. Some teams seemed to be confused
           about this.
4. It seemed that there were a number of times when sharing information between groups
   dealing with different aspects of the fair was important, but there was no good mechanism to
   accomplish this. This include changes that occurred at the last minute, such as the addition of
   projects, changes in the categories for some projects, changes in judging assignments, and
   similar matters. It also became important to be able for various groups to know which judging
   teams had submitted results.
   RECOMMENDATION
       a. Some pre-planned method of handling such information should be provided. For
           example, if a person who was not on the list of judges shows up, who will decide how
           to deal with him?
       b. It could be useful to establish a computer network that would allow last-minute
           changes to be instantly transmitted to all concerned, but that shouldn’t be absolutely
           necessary. Manual methods could also be used.
       c. Sign-in forms for judges who were not on the list could also be useful.
       d. Provide at the Judge Registration Table a numeric listing of all projects: listing the
           number, category, and the title. This should be printed out. If this was available also
           on a computer, it would be possible to sort it as needed.
       e. Ensure that only one time-table is published. There were differences between the
           timetable in the fair booklet and the one that was e-mailed to judges.
       f. There needs to be better coordination between the Judge Registration Table, which
           collects the judging sheets, and the awards people, who tally the awards. This could be
           accomplished by moving these functions closer together or by using some form of a
           computer network.
5. It seemed that there was some confusion as to where people should go to accomplish some
   tasks. For example, many students seemed to not understand how to have experimental
   protocol for their projects reviewed and display safety matters to be handled. In addition,
   many judges didn’t seem to understand where they were to turn their judging sheets, since
   they were turned in to a variety of different people.
   RECOMMENDATION
       a. While clear written instructions can help, I think that clear signs that direct the people
           to the appropriate location could help greatly.
6. Since the judges in a category work as a team, it is important for them to be able to gather
   together conveniently prior to the judging and during the deliberations which select the
   winner. This was difficult to accomplish for a number of reasons.
   RECOMMENDATION
       a. Have a formal gathering for the category judges in the morning and the specialty
           judges in the afternoon. While the dinner on Tuesday evening was good, particularly
           for the Captains or Team Leaders, since all judges won’t be attending this dinner, the
           dinner doesn’t allow all of the team members to meet each other.




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 11 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
       b. Although I know that this will be difficult to achieve with the apparent lack of space, it
           would be good to provide a specific meeting location (at least at the start of the
           judging) for each judging team.
                i. This would help them gather, meet their Captain or Team Leader, and discuss
                   how to handle their judging task.
               ii. A master list/map of these locations needs to be available at the Judge
                   Registration Table.
              iii. At the end of the judging, it might also help locate judging teams who have not
                   submitted their results in a timely manner.
       c. It might be useful to have nametags for each judging group that are quite distinctive.
           This could help the teams to more easily gather at the beginning of each session.
7. While the judging instructions that were conveyed were good, some points need to be
   emphasized.
   RECOMMENDATION
       a. Indicate to the judges that the judging score sheets may be used strictly or may be
           used as simply a guide line. The Captain or Team Leader of each judging group will be
           responsible for how this should be handled. This should be discussed in their initial
           meeting.
       b. A highlight of the fair for the students is having the opportunity to speak with a judge.
           I met one student who was only interviewed by one judge. She was quite disappointed,
           since she spent all day at the fair to mostly have this opportunity.
                i. It must be stressed that it is ideal to have each student receive as many
                   opportunities to be interviewed as possible. This is in part to help the judging
                   process provide each student with recognition. It also allows each student to
                   gain oral presentation experience. In addition, it has also happened that some
                   projects which didn’t have a very impressive display were seen to have hidden
                   virtues.
               ii. To this end, general judging teams should be encouraged to have individual
                   judges meet with each student, rather than have a large team of judges travel
                   around to talk with each student. Of course, in some situations it will be
                   necessary for judges to team up to talk with a student. However, hopefully each
                   student should be able to have at least three interviews with judges in the
                   morning.
              iii. In the afternoon, it would also be good to ensure that each student have the
                   opportunity to be interviewed by at least one judge. I realize that the nature of
                   this judging makes this difficult to achieve, but it is unfortunate that some
                   students stood by their project during the afternoon and didn’t have an
                   opportunity to talk to anyone during all of this time.
       c. It appears that it may be important to have each judging team, general and specialty,
           select at least one alternate. This is to handle situations where one of the selected
           prize winners proves to be ineligible for some reason.
8. I have always felt that each project should be judged on its own merits, rather than the name
   of the student, the school represented, or any previous awards that the project has received.
   Unfortunately, I saw all of these prominently shown on some displays.
   RECOMMENDATION
       a. I suggest that we encourage students to, as much as possible, eliminate these from
           their displays.
       b. I also found judges who referred to students and their parents by name during
           deliberations. They also referenced “inside” knowledge of the projects. I think that
           judges should be discouraged from sharing such information during deliberations.
9. RECOMMENDATION
   Some other housekeeping suggestions are appropriate:
       a. Alternate forms of judge nametags should be considered, including a plastic holder
           with lanyard.
       b. It may be useful to use a larger font when printing the nametags for the judges.


D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 12 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
         c. Extra pens, clip boards, judging sheets, and folders for morning and afternoon judges
             are necessary.
         d. Basic office supplies are needed at the Judge Registration table. These would likely be
             useful at other tables, too. These include tape, paper clips, stapler, paper, a pencil
             sharpener, Post-It® style notes and similar materials.
10. It was often hard to find the number of a project once it was set up. This occurred, in part,
    because changes caused some gaps in numbering. This likely can’t be completely eliminated,
    but some suggestions might help.
    RECOMMENDATION
    Some things that could be useful include:
         a. A more noticeable sign listing the project number at each display. This could hang
             down from the front of the table. Another possibility would be for it to be printed on a
             triangular “tent” sign. In this way the project number can’t be as easily “buried” under
             a bunch of papers.
         b. When a project category must be physically spread out, it would be helpful to provide
             clearer signs indicating the continuation to a different location.
11. Last minute changes seemed to cause major disruptions.
    RECOMMENDATION
         a. All student self-selections for special awards must be done before the day of the fair.
             Last minute changes aren’t warranted and simply caused undo confusion.
         b. In as much as possible, the student selections should be pre-screened to ensure that
             they are appropriate. In this fair, some students signed up for consideration for a
             Specialty award, but weren’t even in the correct grade to be considered.
12. It wasn’t clear who was responsible to provide judges for specialty awards.
    RECOMMENDATION
         a. A clear list of which specialty awards will provide their own judges should be provided
             to the Judge Registration Table.
         b. Specialty Judges must register at the Judge Registration Table, just like all other
             judges. In this way, we can know which Specialty Judges have actually arrived and
             they can be told how to turn in their results.
13. There was some confusion with some of the Specialty Judging Teams because multiple awards
    were listed on some sheets. This became confusing because each judge only needed to know
    the award that he was judging.
    RECOMMENDATION
         a. List each specialty award on its own sheet of paper.
         b. Provide on the form the numbers of the projects that are to be judged.
Ask the Specialty Judges to select some alternate winners, in case a student who was selected
isn’t eligible for the




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 13 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
Sponsors Feedback

From: Bundy, Maria - GOV [mailto:Maria.Bundy@wisconsin.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:36 AM
Subject: RE: BSSEF March 15th

Hi Patti,
That’s fabulous. I certainly enjoyed seeing the event, at least for a little while. I’m sorry we had to scurry out, but we both
had commitments for the evening that we had to be back for. I’m glad we could make it, though.

We just need to figure out how to get her the letter and commendation. You had wanted the commendation on a plaque,
correct? So should we send you the commendation to send to her? Or should we send everything directly to her and bill
you for the plaque? I think I just need to know the address to send things to.

Also, if there is any specific language you’d like in either, please send along.

Regarding the tour, I thought you were making contacts with Adam Ericsen at UW. He might be a good place to start. That
tour would most likely have to be in Madison. Alternatively, I am not sure how much experience she has with the WATER
Institute at UWM, since it sounded like she was involved with those folks for her research. I do have a contact at UWM that I
could ask about a possible tour if it would be more convenient and something she hasn’t already done. Let me know your
thoughts on this one.

Finally, are the other award recipients and projects up on the web page or do you have a list for us to look at?

I think that’s all for now. We’ll get started on crafting those items to get to her!

Congratulations on a successful fair! What a wonderful event for those students! And thank you for allowing our office to be
a part of it. I think this award really did turn out wonderfully.

Best wishes,
Maria

Maria Bundy
Education Policy Advisor



From: Roehm, Steven P (GE Healthcare) [mailto:Steven.Roehm@med.ge.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 8:07 PM
To: pbringe@gmail.com
Subject: Nice job

Patti,

Once again ... I wanted to commend you and your team for pulling the BSSEF together and making it a great event! I think I might have
left my USB memory stick with you. Do you have it?

Steve
________________________________________________
Steve Roehm
GE Healthcare
Global Technology




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 14 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 15 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
Judges Feedback

Also note: On 03/28/08 a note was sent to all the judges inquiring if further interest in the Wisconsin
Science Education Foundation Board or the Program, Badger State Science and Engineering Fair were
of interest.

To date the following judges have expressed interest in consideration of Board positions: Kurt Braun,
Linda Newberry-Ferguson, Don Olson, Maria Habib (4-H), and Jim Jaeschke (and Committee).

Below are comments from other judges after the event:




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 16 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 17 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 18 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned


Things that went well
   An Event report and schedule was put together and used for tracking purposes. This helped as the
    Executive Director was completely new to the Fair experience and the Fair Director was returning
    from an 11 year absence.

                                  BSSEF Fair Event - Status Report
                                               Date: February 25, 2008
                                 Title                      Notes                                                                   Date Due/   Contact
                                                                                                                                    Completed
             Logistical Information
                                                     Date   March 15, 2008                                                          04/2007     GS/PLB
                                                     Time   7 am- 7 pm                                                              01/2008     MF/PLB
                                Venue (name, address)       Marquette University, Milwaukee                                         04/2007     GS/PLB
                                        Venue Approver      Stan Jaskolski                                                          04/2007     GS/PLB
                   Venue Contact (name/phone#/email)        Jon Jensen                                                              12/2007     MF
                                     Agenda complete?       Yes                                                                     01/25/08    PLB
                   Geographic direction map complete?       Yes                                                                     01/25/08    PLB
                          Inter-location map complete?      yes                                                                     02/15/08    PLB
             Program Committee Structure
                                            Fair Director   Mike Farmer                                                             11/15/07    PLB
                                        Judge Chairman      Miriam Clifford / P. Blomquist                                          11/15/07    MF
                                      Awards Chairman       Neil Paton                                                              11/15/07    MF
                                    Volunteer Chairman      Mike Farmer                                                             11/15/07    MF
                                    SRC/IRB Chairman        Jim Barnes                                                              11/15/07    MF
                             Display/Safety Coordinator     Betty Jo Azpell                                                         11/15/07    MF
                         Event Day Speaker Chairman         P. Blomquist                                                            11/15/07    MF
                                  Venue Representative      Lori Stempski                                                           11/15/07    MF
                                Sponsor Representative      Jon Jensen                                                              11/15/07    MF
                                                  Advisor   Gary Stresman                                                           11/15/07    MF
                                     2/20/08 Accounting     Eliot write checks. Ashley fischback will track registration payments               MF/PLB
                                             Coordinator    and related bookkeeping items.
                            Photographer/videographer       P: Nick Beshensky V: Troy Shaw                                          03/05/08    MF
                                             Calligrapher                                                                           03/05/08    MF
             Event Costs
                                                   Venue    $10000                                                                  04/2007     GS/PLB
                           Tables/chairs/coat racks/etc     $2000                                                                   01/14/08    MF/PLB
                                  Meals & refreshments      $3600                                                                   01/14/08    MF/PLB
                                                 Signage    $500                                                                    01/14/08    MF
                         Pre-event Materials/marketing      $30800                                                                  01/14/08    PLB
                                          Event Awards      $4500                                                                   01/14/08    NP
                         Speaker/Presenter Expenses         $1000 (estimate)                                                        01/14/08    PLB
                                   Event day hand-outs      $500                                                                    01/14/08    MF
                                        Volunteer Shirts    $400                                                                    01/14/08    MF
                                      Participants Shirts   $600                                                                    01/14/08    MF
                                             Judges Gift    $2500 (dinner)                                                          01/14/08    MF/PLB
                                                  Parking   $300                                                                    01/14/08    MF/PLB
                                 02/20 Fair Director Fee    $1000                                                                   02/24/08    M/PLB
                           2/20 Judge Coordinator FEE       $250
                             2/20 Fair Coordinator FEE
                               2/20 Travel Support FEE      Cochrane-fountain City to participate $185                              ??
                                           (participants)
                                                    Other   $1000 (estimate)                                                        01/14/08    MF
                                                    Other
                                           TOTAL Costs      $58,850



D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008                  Page 19 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
             Event Day Sponsorship/Income
                                                  Venue   Marquette Univ.                                                     08/2007     PLB
                            Tables/chairs/coat racks/etc  Marquette Univ.                                                     01/2008     MF/PLB
                                 Meals & refreshments     Marquette Univ.                                                     01/2008     MF/PLB
                                                Signage   Determined & printed                                                02/10/08    MF
                                   Pre-event marketing    Clear Channel ($30000) Marquette Univ. ($800)                       01/2008     MF/PLB
                                          Event Awards    PLB $125 (Governor’s Award)                                          03/10/08   NP
                            Speaker/Presenter Expense     Gary to inform 2/10/08 - >$400                                       02/25/08   PLB
                                   Event day hand-outs    Marquette Univ.                                                     01/2008     MF/PLB
                                        Volunteer Shirts  Same as last year                                                    02/20/08   MF
                                      Participants Shirts Same as last year                                                   02/20/08    MF
                                             Judges Gift  Dinner 3/11                                                         02/20/08    PLB
                                                 Parking  Marquette Univ.                                                     01/2008     MF/PLB
                              Organization Registration   $500 (estimate)                                                      03/01/08   PLB
                                Participant Registration  $200 (estimate)                                                      03/01/08   PLB
                            Org/Participant Fees waived   ($300 org / $280 participant)                                        03/01/08
                        Expenses unsponsored (BSSEF)      $10,050
             Judging                                       Min. Need Confirmed Asks Out
                                                Category 40                       23                          49              02/25/08    PLB
                  (10 categories x 3 judge review x # of
                       projects)/6 projects max per judge
                              Must have >1 per category                                               7 previous judges
                    10 Best-of-Show / Captains / All Day 11                       17                    reneged due to        02/25/08    PLB
                     (1 judge per category w/minimum of                                              shortness of time to
                                               11 judges)                                                   judge.
                                                Specialty   50                     8                                          02/25/08    PLB
                (Minimum of 2 judges per award offered)
                                   Uncategorized Judge                             21
                                Judges Dinner rsvp total    (+5) MF, PLB, MC       33                       40 (80 pp)
                                Event day list of Judges    See program booklet
                                                 Training   Phase I @ dinner /Phase 2 @ Fair                                  03/15/08    MC
                                 Information to Judges?     MU Map, dinner invite, Judge Evaluations Sheet, judge criteria,   02/25/08    PLB
                                                            judge plan, agenda, award list
             Participants
                          Schools/Participants estimates 10-12 schools 75-85 projects                                         02/01/08    MF
                             Schools/Participants actuals 70 projects (73 confirmed)                                          03/01/08    MF
                                                 02/22/08
               List prepared (w/ participant contact info)? 73 confirmed                                                      02/25/08    MF/PLB

                  Event day Information to Participants? MU Map, agenda, self-select award list, code of conduct, Arrival     02/25/08    PLB
                                                           info.
             Volunteers                                       Shift
                            Participant Registration 2pp 6:45a-5p                   Sue R./Lori S.                            03/01/08    MF
                                  Judge Registration 1pp 6:45a-5p                   Mary Fonstad & Jan Farmer                 03/01/08    MF
                                  Participant Guides 3 pp 6:45a-7p                  Guy S./Marie H./William M.                03/01/08    MF
                          Speaker/Presenter Guide 1pp 8:00a-7p                      Jan Farmer                                03/01/08    MF
                             Display/Safety Team 10 pp 7:00a-7:45a                  Betty Jo to determine                     03/01/08    MF
                                      SRC/IRB Team 8pp 6:45a-7:45a                  Jim B to determine                        03/01/08    MF
                                        Judge guides 1pp 6:45a-4:30p                Mary F.                                   03/01/08    MF
                             Public Viewing guides 2pp 4:00p-5:45p                  Guy S./Marie H./William M.                03/01/08    MF
                           Project Removal guides 3 pp 6:45p-7:30p                  Betty Jo A.                               03/01/08    MF
                                    Computer /Data Entry 7:30a-5:00p                Jeff C.                                   03/01/08    MF
                                                  Training Mike will supervise/direct day of                                  02/28/08    MF
                    Event day list of volunteers (2/22/08) Jeffery Chan chanj@msoe.edu, William Mak makw@msoe.edu,            03/01/08    MF
                                                           Guy Stuller Gstuller@milwcnty.com, Mary Fonstad
                                                           fonstad@execpc.com, Marie Hegerty
                                                           marie.hegerty@marquette.edu, Grant Teply
                                                           grant.teply@gmail.com, Jan Farmer mfarmer2@wi.rr.com, Kathy
                                                           Stresman kstresman@wi.rr.com
                                                           Ashley Fischback
                             information to Volunteers? MU map, agenda and direct to Mike upon arrival.                       02/25/08    PLB
             Speakers/Presenters
                               MC: Participant Welcome P. Blomquist                                                           01/10/08    PLB


D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008                 Page 20 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
                                  MC: Awards Ceremony        P. Blomquist                                                       01/10/08             PLB
                                              Workshop I     G. Stresman                                                        01/20/08             PLB
                                              Workshop II    J. Barnes                                                          01/20/08             PLB
                                    Participant: Speaker I   M. Farmer                                                          01/20/08             PLB
                                   Participant: Speaker II   Stephen Steiner                                                    02/20/08             PLB/GS
                                      Awards: Speaker I      (confirmed) P. Sara, Clear Channel                                 01/28/08             PLB
                           & Specialty Awards Presenter
                                      Awards: Speaker II     (confirmed) S. Walker, Cty Exe                                     02/20/08             PLB
                         Awards: Speaker III – Governor’s    (invited) Governor Jim Doyle – UNABLE TO SCHEDULE                  02/20/08             PLB
                                                   Award
                         Awards: Speaker IV – MU Award       (confirmed) S. Jaskolski, Marquette Univ                           02/20/08             PLB
                            Awards: Speaker V & Best of      (confirmed) Dr. Bill Berezowitz, Ph.D., P.E. & Mr. Steven Roehm,   02/20/08             PLB
                                          Show Presenter     GE Healthcare [categories 200, 600, 700, 900)
                                Information to Speakers?     MU map, agenda, award list                                         02/10/08             PLB
             Awards
                                        Identify Rewards     30 category, 35 specialty, 3 best of show (and adding)             02/15/08             NP, MF. PLB
                                  Complete Award items       See program booklet                                                02/25/08             NP
                                    Date Awards ordered      Plaques received. Awaiting remainder                               01/29/08             NP
                                 BSSEF Award Sponsor         N. Paton $160
                               Award receipt Confirmation    Students to submit
             Logistics
                                         Event Day signs                                                                         02/228/08           MF/PLB
                                       Event Day booklet     90% complete                                                        02/27/08            PLB
                        Event Day Communication Tools
                             2/14/08 Computers/Printers     Jeff, MF, PLB (MF to determine need from GS)                            03/12/08            MF
                   2/06/08 T-shirts/Prg Committee Shirts    GS ordered 02/20/08                                                     03/12/08            MF/GS
                           Display Booths (fees waived)     Brookfield Academy, Milwaukee Public Museum, Discovery Pier (will 03/10/08                  PLB
                                                            drop off materials Fri after 10), DART
                                         Fair Day Publicity MU, Mke Journal, Small Business times                                  03/01/08             PLB
                            Fair Day Refreshments/Meals Planned, confirmed                                                         03/01/08             MF/LS/PLB
             Improvements for next event
              MF-(02/10/08) concerns remains on number of participants to plan for
              MF (02/10/08) student, judges, volunteer packet content information lists not available. MF will contact Gary, Miriam.
              MF (2/10/08) BSSEF fair day pamphlet information not available. Will contact Gary & Lori. 2/14/08 – transfer to PLB will work on.
              PLB (2/10/08) concern remains that no master list of things needed exists and unknown tasks arise at each meeting/conversation. This is causing much
              frustration. MF will contact Gary.
              MF (2/12/08) concerned previous Fair students have note been contacted. No list exists that he (or I am aware of). MF will contact Gary.
              PLB (2/12/08) N. Paton concerned with Awards – no contact information exists. Will contact Gary.
              PLB (2/13/08) Recently became aware of Program Committee fees paid in 2007. MF unaware. MF will contact Gary.
              MF 2/16/08, 2/25/08 still do not have fair participant registrations and cannot assign project numbers or know if we have the right category judges.
              PLB 02/16/08 MF frustration level will the last minute ‘gotchas’ is very concerning. He is developing a plan with tasks & needs to execute the fair more
              effectively.
Contact key: MF (Mike Farmer), PLB (P. Blomquist), NP (Neil Paton), GS (Gary Stresman), MC (Miriam Clifford), TA (Todd Allen)


            Student Packet:                        Program booklet
                                                   Name tags (with project number and category) will also serve as
                                                   lunch ticket
                                                   Self selection for specialty awards
                                                   Pencil
                                                   Marquette promotional materials
                                                   Questionnaire regarding Marquette's scholarship
            Judges Packet                          Program booklet
                                                   Name tags (with project number and category) will also serve as
                                                   lunch ticket
                                                   Pencil
                                                   Score sheets on clipboard
            Volunteers Packet                      Program booklet

Student speaker summary:
       Stephen ("Stevie") Steiner is a two-time winner of the Nicolet Science Fair, a

D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008                  Page 21 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned
          winner of the former Marquette Science and Engineering Fair, 1st Place winner of the Wisconsin
          JSHES, and winner of 2nd Place in Chemistry at the Intel ISEF in 2000. Stephen graduated with a
          degree in Chemistry from the University of Wisconsin--Madison in 2004, funded in part by a scholarship
          he won at the JSHES for his work on aerogel production. During his time at Madison, Stephen
          researched formation of aerogels in weightless environments on NASA's "Vomit
          Comet"--an extension of his high school science fair work--in addition to studying fundamentals of
          organosilicon chemistry. In 2006, Stephen graduated with his master's degree in Materials Science and
          Engineering from MIT, where he studied growth of carbon nanotubes on carbon aerogels. He is
          currently a PhD student at MIT working on production of ultrahigh-strength nanotube materials for
          aerospace applications and, in his spare time, works as one of eight flight directors for the Zero Gravity
          Corporation. Stephen attributes his academic successes to the opportunities opened to him by science
          fairs in high school, and to the lessons he learned from his science fair mentor Mr. Ron LeMay, who as
          Stephen says "taught me in the ways of creativity, persistence, and how to value everything you do,
          even if it's not what you originally set forth on doing".

   The Fair had a great response for judges from the local businesses
   Sponsors were happy with their recognitions, their interaction, and the processes
   The media attention reached a new height. BSSEF was front page of the Milwaukee Journal Metro
    Section on Sunday March 16th.
   The program book was well received by parents, sponsors, and the public.




D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 22 of 23
2008 Badger State Science & Engineering Fair – Lessons Learned


Meeting Notes – M. Farmer & P. Bringe-Blomquist
Several items were discussed but planning for next year is underway. We have established the
reporting processes, responsibilities, and tasks for the next few months.

Tasks to complete
 Program Committee Chairpeople Roles & Responsibilities is a must. This list will include tasks,
  due dates, reporting, and team requirements.
 All forms, reports, and printed materials will be reformatted for a common ‘look and feel’ to
  support the Awareness campaigns.
 Interaction with the regional fair system and other student ‘feeder’ organizations will be solidified
  and roles & responsibilities will be defined
 Fair day processes need a hard look to improve efficiencies and accuracy to negate conflict of
  interest situations, confusion, and our affiliation responsibilities to ISEF and the students.
           o Includes fair day logistics
           o Includes fair day processes
           o Includes fair day scheduling
           o Includes fair day volunteers, responsibilities, utilization, and expectations
           o Includes fair day lines of authority
           o Includes fair day written objectives and plan
 Publicity and communication for the fair remains an open concern, especially in the earlier phases
  where kids would be starting projects.





D:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\8c7457dc-4119-435d-a6b2-877020d250d8.doc Saved March 31, 2008   Page 23 of 23

								
To top