Overview
Award deliberation is the last vital step in the Judging Process. In this step Judges will work with the Judge Advisor and one another to select candidates for each award, and create a plan of action for gathering any follow-up information for final decisions.
Award Deliberations involve comparing teams to one another. The integrity of the Judging Process depends on all Judges being able to speak candidly during this process. What transpires during deliberations is particularly sensitive information. Therefore, all judging deliberation notes and conversations need to be kept confidential during and after the event.
Step 1 – Award Nominations from Each Judge Group
After Judge groups have interviewed their subset of teams, they should decide which one or two teams from their subset of interviews are candidates for each award. Judges do not need to nominate a team for every award. They should return to the Judges’ Room and share their nominations with the rest of the Judge volunteers and Judge Advisor. Often this takes the form of Judges affixing sticky notes with team numbers written on them, under a printout of each award name, in full view of other Judge groups who are also doing the same.
Award Description sheets can be printed out and used to help visually organize judge input/candidate teams during deliberations.
The end result will be a shortlist of nominations for each award from all Judge groups. When there are many award nominations for each award, the Judge Advisor may ask Judge groups to withdraw weaker candidates from consideration, based on brief arguments for and against each nomination. Or a Judge group, upon considering the merits of other candidates, might withdraw their nomination for their initial candidate.
Step 2 – Cross-Checking Award Nominees
This step should be completed before the end of Qualification Matches. The Judge Advisor organizes Judge groups to go out and gather further information to validate the shortlist of award nominees. This may take the form of observing Skills Missions matches, Teamwork Mission Matches, and behavior in the pits, as well as potentially conducting follow-up interviews with award nominees. The goal is to come up with a final ranking of nominees for each award being presented.
For follow-up interviews, it is recommended that the nominees are interviewed by Judges that have not interviewed them previously. If possible, put Judges together who share an area of expertise to evaluate particular awards. For example, Judges who have a background in programming / computer science would likely be best qualified to evaluate the finalist nominees for the Coding Award. This guidance specifically differs from initial interviews, in which Judges with similar expertise should be assigned to different judging groups.
Teams should not be told what awards they are in contention for. This is a violation of the confidentiality principle of the Guide to Judging.
Step 3 – Final Ranking and Nominations
The next step is the final deliberation for each award at the event. This step should be completed shortly after the beginning of Elimination Matches. Quantitative data needed for deliberations for certain awards can be obtained from the “Team List,” “Qualification Rankings,” and “Skills Challenge Rankings by Age Group” reports from the Reports tab in Tournament Manager at the event.
If follow-up interviews were conducted, the Judges who conducted the follow-up interviews should be the ones to deliberate and create a ranking among those teams. It is a best practice to have first-choice award nominees, plus three or more additional alternate candidates.
If information comes to light that a team may have violated the Code of Conduct or Student-Centered Policy, either by judge observations or from Volunteer Field Notes to Judges, that team’s consideration for the judged award should be scrutinized by the Judge Advisor. If there is found to be merit in that information, the award is given to the next alternate team in the award nomination ranking.
NOTE: Because the Aerial Drone Competition is a developing program, there may be rare cases where judges cannot identify a team that meets all of the key criteria for a specific award. If this occurs, the Judge Advisor should contact the RSM and will need to complete the REC Foundation Regional Support Request: Event Anomaly Log. Judges should then deliberate and use their best judgment to identify the team which best represents the intent of the award.
Step 4 – Entering of Award Winners into Tournament Manager
After award nominations have been chosen, the Judge Advisor should inform the Event Partner and Tournament Manager (TM) operator, who can then put those Team numbers into Tournament Manager under the “Awards” tab. It is recommended that the TM operator print the Award Summary Sheet or Award Script Reports, so the Judge Advisor can double check that all award winners have been entered correctly.
Step 5 – Collection and Treatment of Judging Materials
Prior to the award ceremony, the Judge Advisor should secure the Judges’ Room, including collecting all notes, rubrics, and ranking sheets, and erasing any whiteboard notes. Judges should not retain copies of any notes that reference individual teams, including rubrics or award ranking sheets. If pictures of teams or robots were taken, Judges should delete them.
After the event is over, the Judge Advisor should destroy all judging materials off-site. These items are not to be given to the Event Partner for destruction.
Continue to the next section, Guide to Judging Part 10: Remote Judging