SciTech 2015 SDM Student Paper Competition Update to Structures Technical Committee Dawn Phillips (Student Paper Chair) September 11, 2014

SDM Student Paper Competition

For those who don’t know.....

Five awards: • Jefferson Goblet • Structures - Lockheed • Structures - Hilton • Composites • NDA (new this year!!) Preceding years procedure: • All accepted student final manuscripts collected, distributed, judged within 7 days (±) after manuscript deadline closed • Finalists required to present papers twice: 1. Regular technical session 2.

“Judging” session on Sunday night or Tuesday night – Sunday night presented travel difficulties – Tuesday night meant some students had already presented their paper once, some hadn’t • Approximately 6 finalists selected for 4 awards

New Procedure For SciTech 2015

Big task! – make sure presentations are judged in their regular sessions at SciTech!

Solution – have three rounds of judging: • Semi-finalists selected based on extended abstracts (three judges per abstract) • Finalists selected based on final manuscripts • Winners selected based on manuscript scores and at-conference presentations

Big change #1

– semi-final round changed sessioning work load on TC Reps Solicited feedback from organizing committee, worked with John K. (SDM Technical Chair) to develop schedule Student manuscripts required to be submitted one month earlier than regular conference deadline (ScholarOne will be locked at 5:01pm EST on November 3, 2014)

Big change #2

– judges have more time and fewer manuscripts to read

Student Presentations

Two options – final choice depended on decision about awards presentation 1. Awards presented at SDM awards lunch on Thursday – judge in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessions 2. Awards presented at special ceremony (or welcome reception) on Tuesday evening – judge all finalists in two special sessions on Monday (still requires students to present twice, but circumstances different)

Big change #3

– more finalists can be selected, bigger pool of papers  Planning to select 15 finalists for 5 awards Worked with John K. to persuade AIAA to give student awards at SDM awards lunch (decision finally made on July 1)

Big change #4

– student presentations will be judged in their regular technical sessions among their peers

Big change #5

– student winners will be given complimentary tickets to the awards lunch (bonus!)

Abstract Statistics

• 91 student abstracts submitted – semi-final judging concurrent with abstract reviews • Cut-off score of 75 – Pretty even scoring across TCs – Selectively stretched cut-off to 70 to include SUR and extra papers from STR and NDA  Roughly half from each TC selected as semi-finalists (none that were rejected by normal review process) • Judges’ recommendations for special awards really helped

TC

ASC DE MAT MDO NDA SCS SD STR SUR

Total

5 18 4 7 2 8 8 6 3

Judges Abstracts Submitted

10 2 18 11 6 3 20 17 4

91 Abstracts Accepted

11 2 16 9 6 3 18 17 4

86 % Accepted

110% 100% 89% 82% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100%

95% Semi Finalists

5 1 7 6 6 1 9 10 2

47 % of Submitted

50% 50% 39% 55% 100% 33% 45% 59% 50%

52% % of Accepted

45% 50% 44% 67% 100% 33% 50% 59% 50%

55%

This many to session/judge without semi-final round.

This many instead!

Pretty Close!

Conference Sessions

Sessioning worked beautifully!

• ALL 47 student semi-finalists were placed in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessions • Entire conference program delivered to me to deconflict student papers – Contacted each TC Rep with individual requests to move papers (the response was awesome!) – Managed to get no more than two student papers overlapping at a time ▫ Not very many occurrences ▫ Used abstract scores as predictor to which abstracts will likely be finalists (NO instances where highest scoring abstracts overlap each other)  Thought is that none of the 15 finalists will overlap. If they do, judges will only need to divide & conquer into two groups

Remaining Tasks

Finalist selection: • All dates selected to work around holiday schedules!

• Manuscript judging (47 manuscripts) for finalist selection – November 3-14, 2014 – Will use 4-5 judges per paper – opportunity for cross-TC judging • Finalists notified n.l.t. December 8, 2014 • Finalists’ manuscript scores will be combined with presentation scores for winner selection At-conference presentation judging: • Presentation judges will have to hop rooms!

• Will be a big job – need people who can dedicate to the task • Don’t want conflicts with session chairs or presentation of own papers • Likely have two types of judges: 1. Core group of judges who can hit all 15 papers 2. Extra judges who can tag-team accompanying the core group for a few papers • Will want special STR and NDA representation since they have special awards

So far, so good.

Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition.

Back-up

SciTech 2015 Master Schedule

2/5/2014 3/17/2014 5/15/2014 6/2/2014 6/25/2014 7/7/2014 7/10/2014 7/29/2014 8/8/2014 8/22/2014 10/1/2014 10/15/2014 11/3/2014 11/14/2014 12/1/2014 12/8/2014 1/5-9/2015 Call for papers finalized Abstract website open Deadline proposal submission for special and panel sessions Abstract website closed Student abstract judging for semi-finalists complete Student semi-finalists delivered to TC Reps Abstract review complete (cut-off score established, sessioning begins) All sessioning complete (student deconflicting completed 7/22) Deconflict report complete Acceptance/rejection letters sent Manuscript submission website opens All keynote speakers identified Student manuscripts due, judging round 2 begins Student judging round 2 complete, includes cross-TC judging Manuscript submission website closes Student finalists notified SciTech 2015, Orlando, FL

Abstract Judging Criteria

Criterion

Originality Technical Content and Quality Relevance of Contribution Organization and Clarity Potential to be a Good Paper

Total Judge’s Score

(max 10 pts) (max 10 pts) (max 10 pts) (max 10 pts) (max 10 pts)

50 Weight

1.75

3.5

1.0

1.75

2.0

- Weighted Score

17.5

35 10 17.5

20

100

Manuscript Judging Criteria

Plan to use same as previous years:

Criterion

Originality Technical Content and Quality Relevance of Contribution Organization and Clarity

Total Judge’s Score

(max 10 pts) (max 10 pts) (max 10 pts) (max 10 pts)

40 Weight

2.5

3.5

1.5

2.5

- Weighted Score

25 35 15 25

100

Option: use 15-pt scale for wider/clearer spread of scores?

Presentation Judging Criteria

Plan to use same as previous years:

Criterion

INTRODUCTION • The research question/hypothesis was clearly stated • The goals and specific objectives were presented • The project had sufficient, supporting background METHODS & RESULTS • The methods were clearly outlined/explained • The presenter acknowledged limitations to the study • The results were clearly explained and significant results were highlighted CONCLUSIONS • A review/summary of the project was presented • The significance of the results was discussed • The applicability of the results was discussed PRESENTATION STYLE • Presentation aids were clear and readable • Presentation was well-structured and logical • Presentation fit into the allotted time • The student seemed knowledgeable • The student exhibited appropriate voice projection, eye contact, confidence, and reliance on notes • The student responded well to questions from the audience

Total Max Possible

20 20 20 40

100

Comparison to Previous Years

TC

ASC DE MAT MDO NDA SCS (GSF) SD STR SUR Wind Energy

Total Finalists 2012 Uploaded

7 3 12 17 7 3 31 14 0 5

99 6 2013 Uploaded

12 3 15 15 16 5 13 13 1 3

96 6

* First year of transition to SciTech † Additional STR finalists identified and judged separately

2014* Uploaded

1 0 4 6 5 1 12 12 0 --

41 6 † Accepted 2015 To Judge

11 5 2 1 16 9 6 3 18 17 4 7 6 6 1 9 10 2 --

86 --

--

47 15

Observations

Some (not much, but some) confusion over new procedure • Casualty of doing semi-final judging at same time as abstract reviews • New ideas take time to catch on...

The “pat on the back”: Structures TC incredibly responsive and cooperative • Proactive about asking questions and getting clarification • Recruited judges when requested • Judges followed instructions