Team Interviews

Overview

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.

Step 1 – Conducting the Team Interview

• All teams should be interviewed for roughly the same amount of time – the Judge Advisor will create a schedule based on the number of teams and Judges at an event
• Typically, a Team Interview lasts about 10-15 minutes – staying on schedule is important to ensure all teams are interviewed and there is sufficient time to conduct deliberations
• Team interviews are based around Judges directly asking students open-ended questions about their drone in order to shed light on their design process, teamwork, and journey throughout the season, and asking follow-up questions as needed
• Judges should take notes during interviews and observations to support their evaluations and assist with deliberations – The Team Interview Notes form can be used to keep track of notes for each team
• Judges may consider taking a picture of each drone with the team number visible to help recall details mentioned in their notes
• If Judges are unable to locate an assigned team for an interview after several visits to the team’s pit area, they will leave a Judges’ Note to Missed Teams on the team pit table
• Judges should remember that younger students communicate their ideas differently than older students. Judges should use age-appropriate language when asking questions and considering student responses
• The Judging Single Page Reference may additionally be used by Judges to look up award description briefs and other useful information

Step 2 – Complete Team Interview Rubric

• After the interview, each Judge group will complete both the Team Interview Rubric and the Initial Award Candidate Ranking Sheet for each team. Judges should go somewhere private to discuss and fill out these forms and should take care that their discussions are not overheard by any other party
• Judges should identify student-centered teams with positive, respectful, and ethical conduct during the team interviews and team observations; conversely, they should also make note of any teams that are not demonstrating these principles. Including teams that are not being directly interviewed

Step 3 – Identify Initial Candidate Teams Within Judge Group

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.

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.