THE KENYA SCIENCE AND ENGINERING FAIR (KSEF)-SCORE SHEET (SESSION ONE)

Name of learner(s):1…………………………………………
Judge’s Name & Signature
2………………………………………….

Title of project ……………………………………… Reg. No

………… Part A ……………/ 30
Category …………………………………................................................

School………………………………………… Region ……………

PART A: WRITTEN COMMUNICATION (WRITE UP AND POSTERS)

(Level of performance: 0=Not done, not present, 0.5=Poor, very weak, 1.0=Satisfactory, 1.5=Good, 2.0=Extensive, well
done)

NO Criteria ( more extensive in report than on the poster / charts) Maximum Score
Score
1 Write up neatly and logically organized 2
W rite with clearly labeled sections eg. Abstract, and plagiarism pledge etc
2 Evidence of background research in write up (max 1mk) 2
Background information and knowledge, summarized in write up with articles in
appendix
Introduction in write up (max 1mk)
Including focus question / problem statement and supporting evidence
3 Written language in write up and on poster 2
Legible, correct fonts, scientific, suitable headings, no spelling mistakes
4 Aim / hypothesis/ objectives of project reflected in write up and on poster 2
5 Methods (and materials) used or technologies used in write up and on poster 2
Presented in logical order , correct expression, more extensive in report than on poster
6 Variables identified in write up and on poster 2
Dependent and independent variable
7 Results in write up and on posters 2
Full observations, presented in a tabular form and in graphs in write up. Summary in
graph or diagram form on poster. The results should be scientifically and
mathematically suitable and correct.
8 Analysis of results in write up and on poster 2
Report/findings/graphs explained in words, more extensive in write up than on poster
9 Discussion of results in write up and on poster 2
Pattern and trends are noted and explained, anomalies/unusual results are discussed ,
limitations noted and clarified
10 Future possibilities of research in write up / recommendations 2
Future extensions and possibilities are identified
11 Conclusions are reflected in write up and on posters 2
They are valid, based on findings and linked to objectives.
12 Reference in write up 2
Reference of books, magazines and internet addresses given in the correct format
13 Acknowledgements in write up and on poster 2
It is important to find out depth of audit assistance received and how this assistance
has been used
14 Display board – summaries project and is neatly organized 2
This must include correct size of the board and logical flow of presentation
15 Project data file. 2
Research plan/Rough work/original data sheets/plans/diagrams/photos/questionnaire/previous
models/emails/etc. Showing what was done and when, where and how observations,
circumstances ,results etc.

30
TOTAL.
THE KENYA SCIENCE AND ENGINERING FAIR (KSEF)-SCORE SHEET (SESSION TWO)

Part B ………. / 15 Part C ………. / 30

Judge’s Name Signature

Name of learner(s):1…………………………………………

2………………………………………….

Title of project ………………………………………………. Reg. No ………………………………….

Category ……………………………………..................................................................................................

School…………………………………………………………... Region …………………………………

PART B: ORAL COMMUNICATION (INTERACTION)

(Level of performance for No’s 1-5: 0=Not done, 0.5=Good, 1.0=Excellent)

(Level of performance for No’s 6-10: 0=Not done, not present, 0.5=Poor, very weak, 1.0=Satisfactory, 1.5=Good,
2.0=Extensive, well done)

S/NO Criteria Maximum Score

Score
1 Capture of interest 1
The learners presentation is exciting and stimulating
2 Enthusiasm / effort 1
A worthwhile effort was made to explain, lots of enthusiasm
3 Voice / tone 1
Totally audible, varying intonation
4 Self-confidence 1
Ease of presentation
5 Scientific Language 1
Use of appropriate language and vocabulary
6 Response to questions 2
Carefully listens to questions, responds clearly and intelligently
7 Presentation of project 2
Can present the project in a logical, well organized way
(without reciting/ reading directly)
8 Limitations / weaknesses and gaps 2
The learner is fully aware of limitations and can explain reasons for gaps
9 Possible suggestions or expanding project / recommendation 2
The learner is fully aware of possibilities for expanding the project
10 Authenticity 2
The learner takes complete ownership of the project and integrates assistance received in their
answers to questions. Can demonstrate all of the methods / techniques used. It is important to
find out the amount of assistance received and how this assistance has been used ask questions
15
TOTAL
PART C: SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, METHOD AND CREATIVITY.

(Level of performance for No’s 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9(I & ii), 10, 12 and 13: 0=Not done, 0.5=Poor, 1.0
=Satisfactory, 1.5 = Good and 2.0 = Extensive, well done)
(Level of performance for 3,4,6,9 (iii) and 11: 0=Not done/copycats, 1.0=satisfactory, 2.0 =Good, 3.0 =
Excellent).

S/N Criteria Maximum Score Score

O
1 Statement of the problem: Clear statement of the problem and 2
objectives
2 Introduction / Background information: Relationship between the 2
project and other research done in the same area
3 Application of scientific concepts to every day life 3
4 Subject mastery: Demonstration of deeply and accurate 3
knowledge of scientific and engineering principles involved
5 Literature review: Project shows understanding of existing 2
knowledge. (citations).
6 Data: Adequate data obtained to verify conclusions. 3
7 Variables: Variables/ parameters were clearly defined and 2
recognized , controls used
8 Statement of originality: What inspired the person to come up with 2
the project
9 Logical Sequence: Experimental design demonstrates understanding of *************
scientific methods of research
 Apparatus / requirements 2
 Procedure / Method 2
 Correct illustrations 3
10 Linkage to emerging issues: Linking of the innovation with emerging 2
issues or adds value to existing body of knowledge
11 Originality: Is the problem original or does the approach to the problem 3
show originality, Does the construction
or design of equipment / project show originality
12 Creativity: Have materials / equipment been used in an ingenious way, To 2
what extent does the project / exhibit represent
the student’s own effort/skill
13 Skill: Was the workmanship of the display skillful? 2
Workmanship is neat, well done. Project requires minimum
maintenance

TOTALS 35 …………….

FEEDBACK FOR THE PRESENTERS

Strengths………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
KSEF MARKING SCHEME INTERPRETATION AND SCORING GUIDE
PART A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION

Document to use 1.write –up

2. Posters on the display boards

3. Date File

1. Write – Up
 0 Mark –if not available or not properly declared in page (ii) and Page (iii)
 1 Mark-For proper declaration and plagiarism in page (ii) and page (iii)
 1 Mark if sections are Well labelled right from the cover page all the way upto chapter (v)
2. Evidence of background Research
 Look at data file –shows data collected from various experiments.
 Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of the write up
 Middle flap of the display under results. Give 0 mks
if the results or data is not generated from procedure/non scientific.
 Score 0.5 or 1 or 1.5 or 2 marks depending on how extensive it is.
3. Written language in write-up and on posters
 2 marks are split, 1 mark for same aspect in the write-up and 1 mark for the same on posters
 Check on correct use of scientific principles within the subject area to enhance the project
output.
 Check correct headings in the write-up and on display board.
 Check for spelling mistakes/ unbalanced equations/ misplaced concepts
 Penalise accordingly depending on the degree of errors upto maximum of 1 mark for the same
aspect in the write-up and display board.( 0 or 0.5 or 1 or 1.5 or 2)
4. Objectives – split 1 mark in the write up and 1 mark for posters
give 0 mks if objectives are not SMART. 1 Mark for SMART objectives on posters and 1 Mark for
SMART objectives in chapter 1 of the write –up for a total of 2 marks.( 0 or 1 or 2)
5. Methods and materials used in the write -up and on posters
 Materials – the list of materials must be complete and expressed quantitatively and
qualitatively.
 Methods must be complete, logical/systematic and workable.
 Penalize fully for any omission
 1 mark for same aspect in the write-up (chapter 3) and 1 mark on posters (middle flap) under
apparatus/requirement and procedure.( 0 or 1 or2)
6. Variables identified in the write-up and on posters.
 0 Marks for merely listing variables
 1 Mark for correct demonstration of effect of change of variables in the write up ( chapter 3
and chapter 4) and 1 mark for doing the same on posters (middle flap – after procedure.) (0 or
1 or 2)

7. Results in the write-up and on posters

 If part A – 5 (methods) scores 0 mark, then anything on the results or data scores 0 mark i.e
part A- 7,8,9 and Part C 6 and 9)
 1 mark for diagramatic /graphical presentation of data in chapter 4 of the write-up and 1 mark
for the same on the posters (middle flap)(0 or 1 or 2)
8. Analysis of results in the write-up and on posters 0 mark
- if data being analysed is not scientific or if part A 5 and 7 have scored 0 mks.
 1 mark for statement correctly explaining the graphs in chapter 4 of write-up and 1 mark for
correct statement on the relationship between variables in the graph on posters (middle flap).( 0
or 1 or 2)
9. Discussion of results in the write-up and on posters
 1 mark for correct explanation of trend noted or limitations noted or anomalies encountered in
chapter 4. Of theWrite-up and 1 mark for the same aspect in middle flap of display board
(results on posters.)( 0 or 1 or 2)
10. Future possibilities research in the write-up and on poster
 0 mark recommendation for adaption
 1 mark – for correct suggestions made to overcome limitation or improve performance of the
project- check chapter 5 of the write – up and 1 mark for the same aspect in the last flap of the
posters (conclusion)( 0 or 1 or 2)
11. Conclusions as reflected in write-up and on posters.
 0 mark not referring to objections and data to chapter 4
 1 mark for conclusion using data in chapter 4 to demonstrate the extent to which objectives in
chapter 1 of the write-up have been achieve and 1 mark for same quality of conclusion on the
last flap of display board.( 0 or 1 or 2)
12. References
 0 mark – if there are no citations in chapter 1 and chapter 2 of the write-up during
introduction and literature review.
 2 mark for APA referencing
 Penalise fully in case of an error in any of the reference (0 mark) ( 0 or 2)
13. Acknowledgement in write-up and on posters.
 0 mark – If there is no acknowledgement or it is not specific. ( ignore acknowledgment of
judges)
 1 mark - for correct acknowledgement in page (v) of the write –up and 1 mk for the same
correctly done in the last flap of the display board ( 0 or 1 or 2)
14. Display board.
 0 mark - for display with Misplaced poster (s) i.e All posters must be placed in
prescribed places from left to right of the display board
 1 mark for being attractive or neat of artistic value ( 0 or 1 or 2)
15. Data file
 0 mark -If data is not collected according to the work plan or research plan or if not signed or
information given by individuals is not counter signed or if not handwritten or rough work or if
data is not generated from procedure.
Depending on the extent of research (how detailed and whether each objective has data to
validate it) ( 0 or 0.5 or 1 or 1.5 or 2)

PART B - ORAL INTERACTION/INTERVIEW

 Written documents are still there.

 Write – up
 Data files
 Display board
 Exhibit/project itself and the presenters
 Part B – looks at communication skills and is to score against one presentation.
 Normally very subjective

1. Capture of interest.
 From introduction of the project title, how striking is it? Are judges anxious of knowing more
about the project or how are communication skills being manipulated to sustain audience?
 Score accordingly (0 or 0.5 or 1) depending on extent
2. Enthusiasm /Effort
 Pace of presentation- moderate pace, keen on moving with the audience.
 Maintaining eye contact with audience
 Drawing attention of audience to the display and project to make them understand
 Score accordingly (0 or 0.5 or 1).
3. Voice/tone
 Flat tone/same tone from start up to the end shows the presenter has no areas of emphasis (0 or
1)
 Variation of the tone maintains audience and shows areas/points of emphasis in the
presentation -climaxes /tone variation is critical in communication
 Observe and score accordingly (0 or 0.5 or 1).
4. Self Confidence
 Check on mannerism e.g. Avoiding eye contact completely shows lack of confidence – some
presenters literally close their eyes to avoid detractors.
 Use of words like - you know or I think or just parroting etc.
 Check and score according (0 or 0.5 or 1)
5. Scientific Language
 Check on vocabulary level within the subject area of presentation – i.e use of one word to
mean many correctly within the context.
 Check out and score accordingly (0 or 1)
6. Response to questions
 Testing on patience to listen and courtesy to respond. A person who keeps quiet until a
question is posed has good listening skill hence qualifies for 1 mark
 One who is courteous to respond intelligently for example ‘I don’t know’ gets l mk for
responding and loses marks in part C where the judge was seeking clarification to score.(0 or 1
or 2)
7. Presentation of project
 Logical flow of ideas right from introduction to conclusion
 Presentation can be poor or fair or good (0 or 1 or 2).
8. Limitations/weakness and gaps
 Give 2 marks for presenters who verbally outline the correct limitations of the project ( 0 or 2)
9. Possible suggestions/recommendation.
 Give 2 marks for presenters who verbally make correct recommendations for improvement of
their projects (0 or 2)
10. Authenticity
 Give 2 marks for the presenters who verbally acknowledges specific contributions of
individuals towards their project (0 or 2 )

PART C - OVERALL ASSESMENT

 The major question in this section is:

It was written (write-up, data file, display board) and it was talked about during oral
interaction, in your opinion as a judge was it done correctly or not?

1. Statement of the problem and objectives

 1 mark for statement of problem done correctly
 1 mark for objectives done correctly and score either (0 or 1 or 2)
2. Introduction/background information
 Did it bring out the relationship between the project and other research already done and
identified gaps or not? (Chapter 1 of the write-up)(0 or 2)
3. Application of scientific concepts to everyday life
 Which scientific principles are being applied in the project / exhibit / prototype? How are they
manipulated to enhance the results? It is awarded as follows: 1 mark for a model/project not
working, 2 marks for partially working and 3 marks for a project working fully.
4. Subject Mastery
 Inaccurate information gives 0 mark.
 Accurate and shallow information give 1 mark
 Satisfactory and accurate information give 2 marks
 Deep and accurate give 3 marks
5. Literature Review
 Four aspects each ½ mark, one must get the first ½ to get other halves.

i. Existing knowledge related to the project and gaps ½ mark

ii. New innovation being introduced to bridge the gap ½ mark
iii. Scientific principles being used in the new approach or innovation ½ marks
iv. Important or usefulness of the new innovation 1/2 mark
 Give 0 marks if no appreciation of previous knowledge related to the project.( 0 or 0.5 or 1 or
1.5 or 2)

6. Data
 No data / irrelevant data – award 0 mark
 Shallow data collected from a procedure – award 1 mark
 Sufficient data – award 2 marks
 Adequate- sufficient data for each objective 3 marks
7. Variables
 Correct manipulation and explanation of the effect of change of variables on the project output 2 mks
 Give 0 mark for mere listing of variables or wrong illustration of the effect of change of variables.( 0
or 2)
8. statement of originality
 What inspired him or her or them to come up with a project? Personal encounter/ the issue of
grandmothers etc just give the 2 marks and penalize at 11 if the idea is not original.
9. Logical sequence/ experimental design
 Apparatus-complete list with correct specifications (2 mks)
-complete list without proper specifications (1 mk)
-incomplete list (0 mk)
 Procedure-when apparatus/ requirements score 0 mks, then procedure also scores 0 mks, because
without all the requirements the procedure cannot be executed.
Procedure MUST be complete (all steps) for 1 mark and, logical or systematic and
workable (1mark)
 Correct illustrations- 0mks for no exhibit, 1mark for an exhibit not working, 2 mark for an exhibit
partially working and 3 for an exhibit fully

10. linkage to emerging issues

 Check the statement of the problem and literature review, will give the issue(s) being addressed by the
project( 0 or 2)
11. originality
 Copycats – award 0mark
 Little imagination- 1mark
 Modified – 2 marks
 New/ novel – 3 marks
12. creativity
 Check for the level of improvisation in the project, the manipulative skills exhibited in the project,
level of precision etc.( 0 or 0.5 or 1.0 or 1.5 or 2)
13. skill- workmanship of the display
 Look at the final product, the quality of the FINISH. How refined is it?
 Check whether it is easy to maintain or not(0 or 1 or 2)