2007 ANNUAL REPORT - cosmos - Bowling Green State University

Ohio Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: The overall evaluation rating of the
OJSHS by the participants was 4.8 on a 5-point scale (n=26). The average rating across
different aspects of the program was 4.5. The above average ratings were noted for the clarity
of scheduled activities, general flow of the program, paper and poster session chairpersons,
awards presentations, selection of winners for papers, student paper presentations, audio-visual
equipment and videotaping, administrative mailings and notices, location of the symposium,
facilities, and hospitality room. The students also liked cash awards, printed programs with
photos, certificates and prizes, souvenirs, evening activities, UT Recreation Center visit, and
breaks.
In their written comments about the OJSHS, the students focused on three major areas in which
the symposium was successful in their perception – organization and format, professional
working atmosphere, and recreation/entertainment. Of all the positive comments made, 12 were
work-related, 9 were about organization and format, and 13 were about recreation activities.
Some of the comments included:
Organization: All of the activities were spread out over the event so none of breaks
seemed too long or the activities packed too close together.
Brevity of paper sessions kept people from losing interest.
Structured, yet the scheduled presentations didn’t feel rushed or
rigid.
… the program was very helpful with a comprehensive schedule
w/abstracts, keeping the length of the sessions to a moderate length
helped me stay interested.
Atmosphere: Fostering respect and congeniality of participants was wonderful
this year.
Recreation: The variety of evening activities was also enjoyable. The food was
also excellent and overall I am glad I attended this symposium.
Everything: As this is my first year to attend, I was impressed with every part.
I’m a happy camper this year – was close to flawless.
The OJSHS was an interesting way to enjoy the study of science.
Very fun!
Suggestions for improvement included the need to have more poster judges to avoid having
them in pairs, a better judging procedure (e.g., judging only the work that the students actually
did independently on the project), and more diversity in judges’ backgrounds. Several
participants mentioned judge bias, presenters being able to ask other presenters “to make them
look bad,” and not understanding the purpose for some types of questions that were asked. The
participants would like to be able to tour science research labs at the university.
Future Teacher Conference: no data were available for this event