Centre collégial de développement de matériel didactique

Judge

The Judges read and evaluate the Contestant Research Proposals for the External Grants Review and select Grant Holders. The Lead Research Director selects the Judges from social science student, teacher, staff and administrator applicants.

The Judges must be:

  1. Enrolled as a student in Québec’s CEGEP Social Science Program or be a current or recently retired teacher, staff or administrator at a CEGEP
  2. Able to volunteer some time to review and evaluate the Contestant Research Proposals.
  3. Familiar with the Social Science Program and the Research Methods course material.

STEP-BY-STEP

Step 1 - SET CRITERIA AND DESIGN SCORING SHEETS

  • Review TRC website material, especially for this scenario.
  • Read the Suggested Evaluation Criteria.
  • Determine whether the Suggested Evaluation Criteria should be altered. Share your thoughts with your fellow Judges.
  • Meet with your fellow Judges to finalize the criteria and create a score sheet that all Judges agree to use when evaluating the proposals.

Step 2 - DESIGNATE ONE JUDGE AS COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER

  • One Judge has to serve as Communications Officer to manage files and lists and act as the communications hub. If no one steps forward, organize a random draw. Consider diminishing that Judge’s proposal review load in compensation.
  • The designated Communications Officer should quickly inform the Lead Research Director of this decision.

Step 3 - TAKE PART IN THE FIRST READING

  • The Lead Research Director will submit the Contestant proposals that meet the basic requirements.
  • To reduce the potential for favouritism and bias, names and other identifiable information will be removed from the proposals by the Lead Research Director. Be sure to include the code numbers assigned to each proposal on your score sheets.
  • Read and review the assigned proposals using the agreed score sheet with weighted values.
  • Ideally, each qualifying proposal should be read and evaluated by at least two Judges.
  • The Communications Officer finalizes the score sheet, assigns Research Proposals to the Judges and sends them their assigned proposals.
  • The score sheets are for internal use and will only be shown to the Lead Research Director.

Step 4 - GENERATE A SHORT-LIST

  • The Communications Officer determines how to organize the short-listing.
  • As a group, generate a short list of the better proposals based on the score sheets.
  • The Communications Officer communicates the short list to the Lead Research Director and asks for the contact information of the Ethics Board Reviewers for the next step.

Step 5 - SEND SHORT-LIST ITEMS TO ETHICS BOARD REVIEWERS

  • The Communication Officer sends the short-listed proposals to the Ethics Board Reviewers. It is preferable not to send the score sheets.
  • Be attentive to the timeline. Transfer the proposals as soon as possible and encourage the Reviewers to conduct their review in a timely fashion. The Lead Research Director may have specific dates for completion.
  • The Ethics Board returns the proposals indicating acceptance or rejection on ethical grounds. Accepted proposals are subjected to a second reading by the Judges.

Step 6 - TAKE PART IN THE SECOND READING

  • Determine together how to select a winner from the finalists that passed the ethics review.
  • If there are not too many, have every Judge read and review all the finalist proposals.
  • One option is to compare the scores from the first reading and devise a way to generate another score or some other distinguishable measure.

Step 7 - TALLY THE SCORES AND CHOOSE THE WINNER

  • From the finalists, determine which one is the winner.

Step 8 - TRANSMIT THE NEWS TO THE LEAD RESEARCH DIRECTOR

  • The Communications Officer informs the Lead Research Director of the winner.
  • The Judges’ decisions are final and no appeals will be considered.

Step 9 - TRANSFER THE PROPOSALS AND SCORING SHEETS TO THE COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER

  • The proposals and score sheets are all transferred to the Communications Officer who sends them to the Lead Research Director.

Suggested Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria below can be used to select a winning proposal. The Judges determine which criteria they prefer and how to weight each item.

For first and second readings

  1. Uses appropriate scientific vocabulary, writer’s voice and formatting style to refer to sources.
  2. Demonstrates a college-level grasp of a social science topic and the research process.
  3. Proposes to tackle a tangible problem.
  4. Is feasible in scope and within the limited budgetary range of a full-time CEGEP student.
  5. Demonstrates a basic awareness of key issues and findings in the literature.
  6. Proposes a Method Plan (methods, instruments, sampling and analysis) that will produce meaningful results for a college-level student project.

Student Judge Application Form

REQUIREMENTS

  • Students, teachers, staff and administrators are eligible to volunteer time to serve as judges. This requirements list applies to student judges.
  • Be a current or recently graduated day student in the Social Science program at a CEGEP in Québec.
  • Have completed or be currently completing at least one Research Methods course.
  • Not concurrently submit a Proposal as a Contestant in the Contest.
  • Submit a completed Application Form with all fields of information completed by the deadline:
    • Contact information
    • 100-word statement of intent
    • Signed agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct
    • Proof of having obtained the Ethics Certificate of Completion

TERMS OF SERVICE

  • The applicants must complete the Ethics Certificate of Completion Course on Research Ethics (CORE), an 8-module, self-paced TCPS 2 Tutorial
  • The applicants will be informed by the Lead Research Director whether they are accepted to the Board.
  • Judging is volunteer work, without financial compensation.
  • Student volunteer hours devoted to judging in this science-oriented activity fulfills the MELS criteria for “engagement contributif,” in scientific activities that are certified by the various Student Involvement Recognition programs in the CÉGEP network.
  • Meeting times and frequency will be determined by the Judges as a group.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Judges embody professional authority at its highest level, and as such, the Judges should be objective, respectful and fair in rendering decisions about the Contestants’ work.

The Judges agree to:

  1. Treat each Contestant and Research Proposal in a fair, impartial, open and honest manner.
  2. Create an amiable work environment.
  3. Render judgments in a timely fashion, based on an objective set of evaluation criteria without prejudice as to the gender, institutional affiliation or topic choice of the Contestants.
  4. Refrain from publicizing or publically discussing the deliberations. Discretion and confidentiality about the Contestants are required.
  5. Return or delete the Research Proposals at the close of the proceedings.
  6. Refuse offers of gifts or favours from Contestants or others.
  7. Request removal from judging when privileged information, such as the identity of a Contestant, may compromise the impartiality and independence of a decision.
  8. Refrain from coaching or advising a student Contestant.
  9. Not serve concurrently as Sponsors or Contestants.

Failure to abide by this Code may lead to disqualification from the Contest.

SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

I, ____________________________ [please print], hereby declare that

  • I have read and understood the Code of Conduct for Judges in this Contest. I agree to adhere to the principles and values expressed in the Code and will, to the best of my abilities, assume the duties and obligations implied therein.
  • I have successfully obtained the Ethics Certificate of Completion “Course on Research Ethics (CORE),” the eight-module, self-paced TCPS 2 Tutorial.

Signature: __________________________________

Date of signature: ______________________________

  

Applicant’s Name:

Program of study:

Student ID #:

Email address:

Projected date of graduation:


Please also include a STATEMENT OF INTENT (100-word account of reason for applying).

Teacher / Staff / Administrator Judge Application Form

REQUIREMENTS

  • Be a current or retired teacher, staff or administrator at a CEGEP in Québec.
  • Submit a completed Application Form with all fields of information completed by the deadline:
    • Contact information
    • 100-word statement of intent
    • Signed agreement to abide by the Code of Conduct
    • Proof of having obtained the Ethics Certificate of Completion

TERMS OF SERVICE

  • The applicants must complete the Ethics Certificate of Completion Course on Research Ethics (CORE), an 8-module, self-paced TCPS 2 Tutorial
  • The applicants will be informed by the Lead Research Director whether they are accepted to the Board.
  • Judging is volunteer work, without financial compensation.
  • Student volunteer hours devoted to judging in this science-oriented activity fulfills the MELS criteria for “engagement contributif,” in scientific activities that are certified by the various Student Involvement Recognition programs in the CÉGEP network.
  • Meeting times and frequency will be determined by the Judges as a group.

CODE OF CONDUCT

Judges embody professional authority at its highest level, and as such, the Judges should be objective, respectful and fair in rendering decisions about the Contestants’ work.

The Judges agree to:

  1. Treat each Contestant and Research Proposal in a fair, impartial, open and honest manner.
  2. Create an amiable work environment.
  3. Render judgments in a timely fashion, based on an objective set of evaluation criteria without prejudice as to the gender, institutional affiliation or topic choice of the Contestants.
  4. Refrain from publicizing or publically discussing the deliberations. Discretion and confidentiality about the Contestants are required.
  5. Return or delete the Research Proposals at the close of the proceedings.
  6. Refuse offers of gifts or favours from Contestants or others.
  7. Request removal from judging when privileged information, such as the identity of a Contestant, may compromise the impartiality and independence of a decision.
  8. Refrain from coaching or advising a student Contestant.
  9. Not serve concurrently as Sponsors or Contestants.

Failure to abide by this Code may lead to disqualification from the Contest.

SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

I, ____________________________ [please print], hereby declare that

  • I have read and understood the Code of Conduct for Judges in this Contest. I agree to adhere to the principles and values expressed in the Code and will, to the best of my abilities, assume the duties and obligations implied therein.
  • I have successfully obtained the Ethics Certificate of Completion “Course on Research Ethics (CORE),” the eight-module, self-paced TCPS 2 Tutorial.

Signature: __________________________________

Date of signature: ______________________________

 

Check whichever option applies:

  •    Teacher
  •     Staff
  •     Administrator

If you are a teacher, are you sponsoring a Contest applicant?

  •    Yes
  •     No

Email address:

Phone number:


Please also include a STATEMENT OF INTENT (100-word account of reason for applying).