MIST 2020
TRUSTING THE PROCESS: CONTENTMENT THROUGH ADVERSITY
Science fair SUBMISSIONS
Judge Feedback:
“Please be sure to clearly state your scientific question and hypothesis. Very interesting experiment. During the presentation, you should focus on explaining the highlights (for example, the growth medium is not important) so you have more time to explain and don't have to talk so fast. For the most part, it was a well thought out experiment. However, there was no way to prevent fungi from growing on the agar plate. Overall, it was a great topic and execution. I would love to see more research on this topic in the scientific community!”
“Great experiment - it was clear you knew your experiment well based on your presentation and your answers to our questions. However, I recommend using an actual PowerPoint instead of your Poster. The poster is fine during a conference where someone has time to view it and analyze it but here it was too confusing to keep track of where our eyes should be. You never showed the title either so that took me a few moments to understand what your experiment was about. Although you answered that all the control groups had a large E.Coli group, it was still too strange for that to happen, especially since it displayed a clear Zone of Inhibition, even with very small colonies around it. You stated that you didn't allow them to be contaminated but contamination is still a very likely possibility and I would recommend experimenting over with another sample. I would also recommend inoculating that large colony onto another dish and then checking to see what it is. It isn't very clear how you plan to prevent the mycelia from filtering through with the water so I was confused about that. Overall, this was a great experiment and was very well researched and carried out.”
Judge Feedback:
“This was an extremely interesting topic and a great idea to pursue your project. I especially liked that you didn't try to overstate your results into something they were not. I found it a bit distracting where you kept saying there were not enough male participants. You could have easily made this a female-only study and removed the male variable. Also, in the methods, you never stated how many participants there were. The visual aid was also a bit distracting. Your great presentation would be better served with a blank background so the viewers focus on the important info. Instead of random books, maybe it would have been great to see a picture of the eye and you can point out where the cornea is and a picture of what the Snellen chart looks like. That being said, this was a great topic and I would love to see more of it explored in the scientific field!”
“Your experiment was interesting and your presentation made me want to know more and try this out myself. You were engaging and spoke well. You also answered the questions very well. However, I would recommend that you try to look more professional since this is still a competition (I did not take any points off for this but it will affect you in the future). The PowerPoint itself was too wordy - to show that you truly understand the experiment, you should not have to have such a wordy PowerPoint but rather bullet points and images while you explain to us what you know. Also, self-reports are often unreliable from participants so in addition to daily reminders, you might want to hold a virtual meeting with your participants to ensure they are doing the exercise. It wasn't disclosed if the participants used specific distance markers for when they are moving their fingers. You should specify this to your participants to keep that consistent for your data. Additionally, in your Methods, you stated that you excluded people with eye conditions but in the Discussion, you stated that you should have checked for information about Myopia so that was inconsistent. I am glad you acknowledged that the results weren't statistically significant and explained why but your analysis and discussion were lacking. The analysis and discussion should often be the longest section of your paper because it is where you interpret your data and show if you truly understand the significance of the results. Your introduction was way too long and your methods had too much unnecessary information. You do not need to provide every little step and detail - only the ones that are needed to understand and replicate the experiment. Your introduction should not be a textbook but rather a basic explanation as to why you decided to choose this experiment and its significance. Overall, I did enjoy your presentation and the experiment. Please do not be discouraged by anything I wrote - it is all for future improvements and I believe that if you make the necessary changes, this can someday be a published paper that you can present at a conference.”
MIST 2019
The Honor of Humility: Finding Dignity in Challenging Pride
Science Fair Submissions
Judge Feedback:
“Strong presentation! Well spoken. Answered questions very well.”
“Great presentation, very good job! Thorough project, good background info, strong presentation.”
“Pro
- Very strong stage presence
- Good background information
- Signposting was great
Con
- Not sure guys, really good
- Need a hook for intro perhaps
Overall: excellent job”
Judge Feedback:
“Great project and presentation. Have more eye contact when presenting - and dont have your phone out, even for notes. You answered the questions well. The project was very well thought out as well as the barriers. Your reference style within your paper need to be constant”
“Nice visuals and very thorough experimental design. I like your acknowledging the issues that comes with using qualitative. Try to have more eye contact when presented.”
“Pros
- Very solid understanding of the background science
- Excellent sign posting, never felt lost through the presentation
- Well thought our study design
Cons
- Cadence slightly rushed
Overall: Very strong presentation”
Judge Feedback:
“Great job! A question to consider: How do you know that it was just frustration that led to a greater trend in completion vs. just overall improved dexterity?”
“Great presentation and project!”
“Pro
- Very thorough project design
Con
- A stronger stage presence would be appreciated but still acceptable.”
MIST 2018
The Valor of Mercy: Summoning The Strength of Compassion
Science fair Submissions
Judge Feedback:
“Love your enthusiasm! Thank you for a very engaging presentation. You clearly explained the methodology of your experiment. I also appreciated that you included your specific role in this experiment/the lab, and related your research to the literature. Please be sure to explain what the knockout mice (what type of gene was knocked out?) and include your experimental limitations. For next year, please be sure to spend more time on the analysis and content/discussion so we can know what the significance of your project is.”
“Excellent job overall! You are a very engaging presenter and displayed a great grasp of your topic! Loved that you gave a very thorough explanation of your experiment design and clearly delineated your role in the experiment. In the future, I would work on time management so that you are able to clearly dedicate time to each aspect of your project. I would also mention possible sources of error and future directions/implications for your project. Overall, this was a very impressive project and you did an excellent job in presenting it very clearly and enthusiastically. Keep up the good work! “
“Love your enthusiasm! Thank you for a very engaging presentation. You clearly explained the methodology of your experiment. I also appreciated that you included your specific role in this experiment/the lab, and related your research to the literature. Please be sure to explain what the knockout mice (what type of gene was knocked out?) and include your experimental limitations. For next year, please be sure to spend more time on the analysis and content/discussion so we can know what the significance of your project is.”
Judge Feedback:
“Great work! I learned a lot about a topic that I barely knew about before! And you explained how the DE30 machine works really well! Please be sure to only use large text with max 5 words per bullet on your powerpoint as it is difficult to read large blocks of text. I would have also liked to see whether you looked at other peaks (instead of just one).”
“Great job overall!! You guys had a good basic intro to your topic and a displayed a great grasp on your topic. The power point presentation was well done w. great visuals and you had good team work during the presentation. I loved that you included a future directions slide as well. In the future, I would dedicate a bit more time to your results and the implications of your study-- like what does it really mean and how can it be applied. Excellent job overall, keep up the good work!”
“Your table of contents should be at the beginning. Speak louder. Try not to fidget. Your presentation should not be so wordy. Break into points. We can’t read the presentation and follow along with what you’re saying at the same time. Your presentationfont should be larger. Very interesting and great project. You broke down the information well and focused on what was important. “
Judge Feedback:
“Great job overall! Really well coordinated presentation between the group! Your power point presentation and visuals were very clear and well done. The experiment design was thoroughly and clearly explained. Going forward, I would work on time management to make sure you are able to spend sufficient time on your results section. I would also add in a section on possible pitfalls or obstacles encountered. Excellent job, keep up the good work! “
“Great work! Your visuals were very clear and easy to read. You adhered to the time limit, you clearly stated your question, and seemed to understand your work very well! Please be sure to include a hypothesis. Also, be sure to explain your specific roles (did YOU do the western blots/what did your grad student/mentor do?). In your paper you referenced a figure, but it was not included in the paper- would have liked to see the results in graphical form on paper. Also your paper exceeds the 5-7page limit. “
“One of your pages in the report was included 3 times (6-7). Speak a little louder. Great project. I like how you stuck to what was relevant and didn’t focus too much on intro. Your explanation of your methods and results were great and thorough. You do need to speak louder though. “