Scioly.org

Writers of this event must give a topic/question to competitors that says what the experiment should be trying to discover, but not necessarily how that experiment should be performed. If the experiment performed by a team is really, completely off the given topic, there could be grounds for a so-called "second tiering." Basically, I'm a little confused. If that team's experiment was actually completely off topic, then they should most likely have been placed below all teams who did follow the topic.

Also, just to note, Amerikestrel is definitely right, there is no "correct" experiment to do at any given competition.

I disagree that the specific experiment has nothing to do with an overall team's placement. As you get into C division, outside knowledge in physics or chemistry is occasionally necessary, and without it, a team's placement will certainly drop. Also, there is such a thing as a more difficult experiment to perform. At nationals last year, my teammates and I had a little bit of a struggle trying to find a way to simply get the trials completed! It's not strictly about the write-up, there are experiments that can certainly play to specific team's strengths.

Outside knowledge is absolutely necessary, especially in the hypothesis. Your hypothesis should have background information in it as an explanation. Case in point: This year at a competition, somehow we heard a day or so before that pendulums were used a lot at said tournament in the past. We called one of participants' siblings, who had competed in ExpDesign in the past at nats, to ask her about it, and we came out with the equation for a pendulum's period. Next day, we get in there, boom, pendulums. We're able to include the equation in our hypothesis as well as other parts of our write up and we medaled.

With the right knowledge, ALL experiments can play to your strengths.

zyzzyva98 wrote:Outside knowledge is absolutely necessary, especially in the hypothesis. Your hypothesis should have background information in it as an explanation. Case in point: This year at a competition, somehow we heard a day or so before that pendulums were used a lot at said tournament in the past. We called one of participants' siblings, who had competed in ExpDesign in the past at nats, to ask her about it, and we came out with the equation for a pendulum's period. Next day, we get in there, boom, pendulums. We're able to include the equation in our hypothesis as well as other parts of our write up and we medaled.

With the right knowledge, ALL experiments can play to your strengths.

Z is right. In almost all the sections, but especially in the rationale for the hypothesis and the conclusions, demonstrating outside knowledge that led you to your decisions in regards to the experiment are vital. Also, along with outside knowledge comes important formulas and math to include in your stats and other math sections. These can really count for several points, especially if the judge is familiar with the topic of the event.

I'm thinking about doing this event in the future, but probably not next year. This event is usually set aside for older members on my team since they've taken more math and science classes that will help them in this (I agree, outside knowledge is a huge part in this event). Still, I want to prepare in advance. What would you guys say is the most important part of the writeup that goes along with the experiment? Where is it easiest to get points off? Thanks.

QuantumLeaper wrote:... What would you guys say is the most important part of the writeup that goes along with the experiment? Where is it easiest to get points off? Thanks.

I find it is easiest for us to lose points for writing in the qualitative observations, just because they are judged differently by different people. The very last part about changes you would make can be easy to get knocked points, too.
Other than that, the main thing is to make all your graphs and math organized and LABELED. The judges need to be able to see everything that is there, and if they don't have a strong math background, they might not be able to tell if you have all the required formulas. And watch the significant figures.
It is all important, but make sure you leave time for the evaluation steps (11-14 on the rubric http://soinc.org/sites/default/files/EXDRubric2011.pdf), because they are a significant portion of your points and can be a little tricky. Communication is also important- make sure that if you are measuring bounce height, everybody refers to it as bounce height, not rebound or bounce distance. You will feel like you are repeating yourself- remember, this is a good thing. Your write up is not expected to win a Pulitzer Prize.
It all depends on the people you have working with you and how you practice. I would suggest running practices like competition. Pretend you are at a competition, then at the end of 45 or 50 minutes review your write-up with the rubric, as if you were an objective judge. We divide our team's skills into writer, math person, and grapher. the people who do graphs and math usually run the experiment and record data, and the writer goes straight to work with the write-up.

Thank you, that helps a lot. I like the sound of this event because I (for some reason) love doing experiments and write-ups. Anyway, I'm trying to think of strategies regarding what to do when time is running out. If time is limited, what portion would be the most valuable thing (point-wise) to write down? I'll check the rules again, but it would be cool to get some opinions on this.

By the way, dividing the work load is a really good idea. I'll definitely mention it to other people who are interested in this event and see if we can work something out.

I think there's a rubric on the rules sheet that explains how many points each section is worth.

How are ties broken in this event?

quizbowl wrote:How are ties broken in this event?

I think it's at the discretion of the supervisor to choose something as the tiebreaker. I don't think the rules specify anything.

The rules do specify a tiebreaker.

Ties will be broken by comparing the point totals in the scoring areas in the following order: Total points for 1 - Variables, 2 - Procedure, 3 - Analysis of Results, 4 - Graph, 5 - Data Table.