Evaluation
firSTep Online Edition is organised in three phases:
Local Rounds organised by the schools by their own jurisdiction. School projects will be evaluated and ranked according to the results will be entered in the Firstep Registration webpage by the deadline.
Qualifications: firSTep jury members will evaluate the projects from their documentation and project videos according to the ranked list given by the schools and qualify the top 20 projects from all schools to the Grand Finals
Grand Final: Qualified 160 projects (20 projects for each category) will be evaluated by the firSTep jury over Zoom.
The jury will be looking for the following criteria in students’ projects:
Evaluation rubric
Unacceptable
(1 point)
Project lacks any sense of personal interest or authenticity.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Some vague attempt to integrate personal interest, but it’s mostly disconnected.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Personal interest is somewhat evident, but the project lacks depth in this area.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Clear link between the project and the student’s personal interest or authenticity.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Project is deeply connected to personal interest and is authentic in nature.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Demonstrates a profound connection between personal interest and project, making it extremely authentic.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
No problem statement provided in the project.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Problem statement is vague and lacks clarity. It is not clearly linked with any of the UN SDGs.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Problem statement is somewhat clear but could be more specific on who are the action-taker, what to address and which UN SDG it refers to.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Clear and concise problem statement that identifies what the project seeks to solve or address with a link to at least to one of the UN SDGs.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Well-articulated problem statement that captures the essence of the project in detail and very clear link or links to one or more UN SDGs.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Exceptionally clear, specific, and insightful problem statement that fully guides the project in line with all possible UN SDG links.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
No creative or original elements in the project.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Some attempt at creativity, but largely derivative.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Shows signs of creativity and some original thought.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Demonstrates creativity and originality in the approach or solution in line with the UN SDGs.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Highly creative and original approach, with unique elements that make the project stand out. Original solutions offered to address one or more UN SDGs.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Revolutionary in its creativity and originality, setting a new standard in the field. Models a high quality original solution linked with all possible UN SDGs.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
Not usable and provides no value or solution.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Limited usability or application, and marginal value.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Somewhat usable, but the value is not clearly defined.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Usable and valuable to a targeted audience. There are clear links to a practical solutions addressing at least one of the UN SDGs.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Highly usable and provides significant value. It offers some practical and achievable solutions to all UN SDGs linked with the problem statement.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Exceptionally usable and extraordinarily valuable, with the potential for widespread impact in local and global level addressing all possible UN SDGs.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
No evidence of using scientific methods.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Minimal use of scientific methods, lacking rigor.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Some use of scientific methods but missing key elements.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Comprehensive use of scientific methods, including research, experimentation, and analysis.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Extensive use of scientific methods, with insights that enhance the project’s validity.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Exemplary use of scientific methods that sets a standard for scientific research in the field.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
No mention of future improvements for the project.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Vague or generic suggestions for future improvements.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Some insightful suggestions, but not fully thought-out.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Detailed plan for future improvements based on findings.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Insightful plan for future improvements that addresses both strengths and weaknesses.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
A comprehensive and highly innovative plan for future improvements that can significantly elevate the project.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
No display, portfolio, or documentation provided.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Incomplete or poorly organized display and documentation.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Display and documentation are present but lack polish or detail.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Well-organized display and thorough documentation that accurately represent the project.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Exceptionally well-designed display and highly detailed documentation.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Display and documentation are of professional quality, providing a comprehensive view of the project.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
No video or entirely irrelevant video provided.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Video lacks focus and does not adequately represent the project.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Video provides an overview but misses key elements: purpose, methods, results and conclusion with audio-visual materials in a time interval of 2 to 4 min.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Clear, focused video that provides a comprehensive overview of the project with all the key elements.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Has all the key elements, highly engaging video that not only overviews the project but also excites and informs.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
Exceptional video that could serve as a model for how to represent a project comprehensively and engagingly. Includes all key elements in the expected time frame.
Unacceptable
(1 point)
Incoherent and disorganized presentation.
Below Expectations
(2 points)
Presentation lacks focus and clarity, with major gaps.
Approaching Expectations
(3 points)
Presentation is mostly clear but could be more engaging or informative.
Meeting Expectations
(4 points)
Clear, well-structured presentation that effectively communicates the project.
Above Expectations
(5 points)
Outstanding presentation skills, effectively engaging the audience while conveying all key points.
Exceeding Expectations
(6 points)
A masterful presentation that is both engaging and deeply informative, setting a new standard for excellence.
Some questions the jury members could ask the participants:
- Personal Interest:
- Why did you choose this topic?
- Is there a personal interest on the topic?
- Creativity / originality:
- Is this work original, never done before?
- Does your research show creativity? Is there any different and original approach to the problem you want to solve?
- Did you construct or design new equipment?
- Scientific Methods:
-
- Did you clearly state your problem?
- Did you use scientific literature when you do your initial research?
- Which methods did you use to solve the problem?
- Did you clearly state your variables?
- Did you use controlled variables?
- Did you keep a project journal?
- Did you keep detailed notes in your journal?
- Effort and Understanding the Project:
- Does your data support your conclusions?
- Do you recognize the limitations of the data / experiment? And did you state them in your conclusions?
- Did you complete all parts of your research experiment?
- Do you recognize the limitations of the data / experiment? And did you state them in your conclusions?
- Did you make suggestions for future improvements?
- Applications:
-
- Was the project performed at home, school, university laboratory?
- Of what value is your project to society?
- Quality of Display:
-
- Clearity: Check to see if the material is organized, with clear graphics and legends
- Supporting Documents: Check to see if supporting documentation is available
- Correctness: Are the spelling, neatness, and grammar correct?
- Design: How does the display/presentation/website look? Is it easy to navigate and user friendly to read the information?
- Video Criteria:
-
- Does the student's school name (or logo) appear at the end?
- Is the duration of the video between 2-4 minutes?
- Does the student wear school uniform or dress appropriately?
- Are the explanation and demonstration clear?
- Are there audio-visual materials to enrich the content and to make the concepts more understandable and interesting to the viewer?