The Team Interview Rubric is used for all team interviews. Judges may use the Team Interview Tips and Sample Questions and Team Interview Notes to assist in team interviews. Judges will interview the teams that have been assigned to them by the Judge Advisor. Teamwork, professionalism, interview quality, and team conduct shall be considered in nominating and ranking teams for all judged awards.
Team Interviews are conducted in the team pit area. This allows Judges to observe teams at work and quickly move from team to team. Judges need to talk to students, not adults. Occasionally enthusiastic adults may want to answer the Judge’s questions. If this is encountered, politely remind the adult(s) that the Judges are there to interview the students. All teams at an event must have an opportunity to be interviewed at least once.
Award finalists may be cross interviewed by different Judge Teams as a part of the deliberation process. The Judge Advisor will assign additional interviews as needed during the event.
The Judge Advisor may provide the Initial Award Candidate Ranking Sheet to Judge groups assigned to interview teams. The Judge groups will use both Team Interview Rubric and the Initial Award Candidate Ranking Sheet as they interview their group of teams. This form may also be useful when initial team interviews are being done remotely (see section on Remote Judging) as a way to log nominations from each judging group.
On the Initial Award Candidate Ranking Sheet, Judges will write down the team numbers of the teams they are assigned to interview on the left side and highlight the additional Judged Awards being offered at the event. Awards should be listed according to priority from left to right, with qualifying awards in the leftmost columns, followed by the non-qualifying awards.
The precedence of Qualifying Awards is listed in the REC Foundation Qualifying Criteria document. The Judge groups will then use the spaces provided to indicate a candidate for each of the additional Judged Awards being offered at the event.
As Judges interview teams, they may want to use multiple stars or checks on the Initial Award Candidate Ranking Sheet to give weight to a recommendation. This is done by adding check marks to rank teams – for example, the first team interviewed received one check mark, and if the second team interviewed would be a better candidate, they would receive one check mark, and the first team would receive a second check mark, ranking them 1 & 2. This would continue until all teams are interviewed – the end result would be a ranking of teams.
Below is an example of how this sheet might be filled out by one Judge group, judging a subset of teams at a larger event. In this example the Flight Operations, Programming, and Judges awards have been filled in below.
|TEAM NUMBER||FLIGHT OPERATIONS AWARD||PROGRAMMING AWARD||JUDGES AWARD||INSPIRE AWARD|
This is a simple way for Judges to preliminarily rank their recommendations as they go, with final rankings done after their set of interviews are completed. Additionally, Judges can also make notes on the Team Interview Notes Sheet.