SSEF is, very roughly speaking, some sort of Olympiad for research. It's far more nebulous, and hence it has been criticised as not really reflective of the quality of the participants' research. This is due to the difficulty in assessing one's project. Much depends on whether the judge specialises in a certain field, whether your presentation is coherent, and whether you seem to be a trustworthy person (yes, they have this tendency to think someone else did the work for you). Nonetheless, these problems are the similar to those faced by researchers, so it's good to learn how to deal with them now. Besides, SSEF is great fun.
There are two parts to SSEF: doing good research (by extension, getting good results), and delivering it properly. This post will concentrate more on the latter.
Report
When writing the report, write the conclusions first. Of course, it's much easier to write in chronological order (writing what you did earlier first, followed by what you did later), but this is not suitable because of the SSEF page limit constraints. This is especially so if you did good research, which means you'll be overflowing with data. Some say you should just write everything down first and trim it down to size, but I found this method too difficult, too time consuming, and too painful (yes. It's like 'argh, I just had to delete a paragraph I spent an hour writing! nooo!').
Instead, I suggest you start with a focused conclusion showing what's your project's contribution to science. This will help to set the flow for the paper, and you will be less likely to include extraneous details into your report. I suggest writing three paragraphs, the first about results which were expected, the third about unexpected results, and the second somewhere in between. It's good to end off with a memorable and impactful statement about the practical application of your unexpected results (very important if you keep getting the 'what are the practical applications of your work?' from your friends/teachers/voices in your head). If you find that your report is still too long, edit the conclusions and try again.
An often overlooked thingy about writing reports (and posters, for that matter) is convention. Follow your own convention. By that I mean always have your title on the same place for all your excel graphs, use the same colour for the same sample when it appears in different graphs, use the same font for axis titles (and so on). Minutiae, I know, but this problem always pops up, especially if you happen to be as careless as I am. Or if it's a group project.
Poster
The backboard (or whatever you call it) the Science Center provides is big enough to fit a poster with dimensions greater than A0. Some people who are really desperate for space do that, but I think it's really awkward to have a non-A0 poster, the non-standard size makes me feel uneasy. More so if everyone nearby is doing A0 (they tend to do that). Any deviations from a single nice A0 poster should be done markedly, so much so that it looks intentionally different, rather than 'oops, I ran out of space and I can' t be bothered to edit it properly'. And at some poster shops, it can be 2 to 3 times more expensive than good ol' A0. The poster should be laminated matt (not glossy, you can't see the words with the light shining on the poster due to reflection). Poster Connection at Sunshine Plaza used to print rather cheaply (and pretty good quality too), but I heard it's more expensive of late.
As with the report, write the conclusions first. It should give you a general idea of how the poster should go. Regarding the exact flow of the poster, it's good to plop all your diagrams, pictures, and schematics on powerpoint first and arrange them such that they make sense. After which, add figure captions and some explanatory text and you have a poster. Like the report (and unlike powerpoint slides), posters are parallel axes of information, so don't repeat diagrams. It's fine to point to other parts of the poster when the need arises.
I recommend putting as many diagrams as possible and as little text as possible. By the time you present at SSEF, you should know your project well enough to say what you need to say to explain your stuff sufficiently well. On the other hand, it's rather clumsy to whip out a pencil and start drawing on the spot. Moreover, it's rather disconcerting when the judge seems to be reading the poster rather than listening to you.
One exception to this rule is to put brief definitions of certain jargon just after your introduction. If the audience can't remember a term you introduced earlier (this happens rather often), he/she can read it from the poster without interrupting you and feeling like an idiot. On top of all these, someone with background in your field should be able to look through your poster and have some idea what you're doing without you making the presentation. Not that the judges will do that and walk off, but well, it's good style.
Once you have a draft which bears some semblance to a poster, print it out on an A4 paper. The font should be big enough that it can be read even when shrunk down to A4. Practice presenting to friends and teachers, regardless of whether they are in your area or not. It is highly likely that you will get judges who are not specialists, so learn how to recognise the various signs of confusion and find methods of explaining your stuff without compromising the beauty of your project. For some projects, it may be useful to build a model to complement the poster presentation. I built one to show a 3D coordinate transformation which I calculated. Much easier to present. Besides, models are memorable.
The Day Itself
Make friends with the people around you (and give them your number). This is a must if yours is a solo project. The judges can come any time from 8am to 5pm, and it's rather difficult to stay at your booth all the time. Sticking a piece of paper which says 'Away, please call ' on your booth (or having it as a ppt slide on your computer, for that matter) doesn't give a particularly good impression. Ask your boothmate to call if you a judge comes. In my case, my first judge came around 3plus, and I was sitting on the floor sleeping (some HCI guys stole my chair. And my boothmate's chair). My boothmate woke me up, very thankfully.
There's no fixed style of judging. So far, I've heard of three.
1) The usual present first, Q&A later, with no time limit.
2) Give a quick summary (my juniors were asked to present in 3min), and then Q&A.
3) The judge comes and just asks questions (my first judge did that).
So be prepared. Also, some naughty judges may request a specific person in a team project to answer a certain question or present a certain part, so do practice everyone's part. One of my juniors even had to present while her teammate was not there (judge demanded it so).
During my year (2009), there were only 3 judges per project. From 2010 onwards, there's 4 to 6 judges per project. It's rather tiring, so think twice before submitting more than one project to SSEF.
Some of the less specific questions which were posed to me
-What was the hardest part of your project?
-How much help did you receive from your mentor?
-What is Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction? (I really got this question)
-How do you convert milliradians to degrees? (This one too, no kidding)
-Are you Singaporean? (Whaaaat?)
Miscellaneous
It's quite nerve wrecking when they're giving out the prizes, so try not to stand in the middle of the crowd or you may get asphxyated. In any case, SSEF is not just about winning, but about getting to know your project and the projects of others in general better. Easier said than done, of course.
If you win any award (and signed up for A*TS during registration), they will call you back for another round. They will select 8 from that round to enter the final round, where the chief judge is some nobel laureate. The final round was especially nerve-wrecking, though that is a story for another day. I will most likely write a short post on A*TS soon.
(Will be updating this post when I remember more)
No comments:
Post a Comment