| Criteria | Breakdown | Example |
|---|---|---|
1 – Planning the project | ||
1.1 The student set a clear aim for the project and broke it down into smaller objectives | The student expressed their project aim in broad terms. They explained how they know will know they have been successful in achieving the aim. Also, they set out specific and measurable objectives for the project. | The aim of this study is to determine the extent of psychological impact on athletes who have been diagnosed with an Inherited Cardiac Condition (ICC).
|
1.2 The student explained a wider purpose for the project | The student showed comprehensive understanding of the wider context of their project. They explained how the project fits into this context and the possible direct and indirect implications of their work. | We feel our project is important because we want to make society and our classmates aware of what they’re putting into their bodies and seeing the consequences such as Coronary Heart Disease and type 2 diabetes. |
1.3 The student identified a range of approaches to the project Explanation: This criterion is about how the project as a whole will be achieved and not just the method for any experiments undertaken. Remember that there are different types of CREST projects . | The student identified a range of relevant approaches – drawing on research and best practice in the field. They evaluated the approaches in detail. | In the lesson, I could formatively assess my students and gather information on their learning in multiple ways – each of these have their positives and negatives. Asking the class questions and choosing a student to answer using a random generator This method of selecting a student is fair, as the student is chosen at random. This avoids the issue of only choosing students confident enough to volunteer their answers or those that feel they know the answer (when other students in the class may not). What’s more, if the student is correct, I will know that at least one student has understood the content – and depending on the student, other students are likely to have understood too. If the student, is incorrect then I will have an opportunity to address the misconception or wrong information in front of the class – potentially addressing multiple students’ misconceptions at once. As the students are chosen at random, and because this is a new topic, there is a chance that a student lacking confidence is selected and ‘put-on-the-spot’. Asking the student when they don’t know the answer, may result in their self-confidence being further undermined. Also, this method of assessment only definitively tells me whether this student knows the answer, and not if the whole class understands. What’s more, if it is a closed question – I won’t know whether the student has understood the answer or if they are regurgitating facts. If I wanted to ask multiple questions, then this is a time-intensive way of gathering information about the class’s learning – which is not ideal as I need to address a lot of content in this lesson. Method: Using an online quiz where students answer multiple-choice questions in pairs or small groups. Positives: This method is the most comprehensive. It ensures I reach the entire class and is a relatively simple process to set up. Negatives: Working in pairs or small groups could bias the results or lead to cheating. |
1.4 The student described their plan for the project and why they chose that approach Explanation: This criterion is about stating the plan for the project at a high-level with students reflecting on and justifying their choices. | The student communicated a well-developed approach for their project, identifying the key activities and milestones. | To achieve our aim of, “identifying the most impactful way of raising awareness and perception of STEM careers in 9-11-year olds” we will take the following approach:
Similarly, one of our group members already works with a youth community group, so this is a great opportunity to see whether the situation and context of the STEM careers information affects the level of awareness and perception. |
1.5 The student planned and organised their time well Explanation: This criterion is about evidencing their plan. For this criterion we want to see something explicit like a breakdown of timings and dates or a timeline or Gantt chart, depending on the project’s Award level. It’s insufficient for students to only state that they planned. Note that the plan should cover the whole project, from planning and researching; to gathering data; to analysing results and drawing conclusions; to reflecting and presenting the project. | The student produced a comprehensive plan for their project. They demonstrated a high level of understanding of the tasks – the skill, time and dependencies required to complete them, and assigned resources and time accordingly. It is clear what the tasks are, how long they will take, who will do them and when. | I structured my project in three broad sections of work – as I was completing the project alone, but with the help of a mentor, this had an impact on how I was going to run it. |
2 – Throughout the project | ||
2.1 The student made good use of the materials and people available | The students identified and sought out the resources and people required. They used them in an efficient and effective way. | To test our design, we needed materials to create a model prototype. As part of our research, we found and costed raw materials to make our designs. As an alternative, we also contacted our local university’s outreach and engineering departments to see if we could use their 3D printer. This meant that we were able to fully test our designs to destruction multiple times – something we wouldn’t have been able to do if we’d a prototype from hand. |
2.2 The student researched the background to the project and acknowledged their sources appropriately | The student extensively researched their project. The research is relevant, accurate and reliable. A consistent referencing style has been used throughout (there are no requirements for a specific style to be used). | Stress, whether psychological or physical, is caused when a situation creates pressure or fear on a person. Stress may be felt during an exam, under time pressure, drastic changes in situations, and due to occupation (Timio and Gentili et al., 1979). In response to stress, hormone levels can increase by two or five times (Ranabir and Reetu, 2011). |
3 – Finalising the project | ||
3.1 The student made logical conclusions and explained the implications for the wider world | The student drew logical and well-considered conclusions. They explored, in detail, the direct and indirect implications of their work on the wider world. They directly addressed the project’s aim and wider purpose. | The findings of the practical parts of my project validated that compound F can be synthesised relatively easily in real-life using the method above, and it isn’t just a theoretical compound I produced computationally. Hopefully, others will see the usefulness of employing silico techniques in early stages of drug discovery, as it is low cost and high impact. What’s more, as public chemical databases are continually growing, the number of compounds, and the data on them, is huge and easily accessed. |
3.2 The student explained how their actions and decisions affected the project’s outcome Explanation: This criterion is about understanding how the student’s actions and decisions affected the project. The student should be able to demonstrate a reflective approach. “I decided to do X and this changed my project in the following ways…” | The student identified and critiqued their project outcomes. They explained in detail how their actions and decisions affected their project. | The method I chose to edit the genome of the embryos (CRISPR) resulted in statistically significant and reliable data. The process was relatively quick when compared to other methods. Also, based on the research I’ve carried out and my mentor’s advice – it was the best option. |
3.3 The student explained what they have learnt and reflected on what they could improve | The student summarised what they learnt and the skills they developed over the project. They reflected on their performance, what they did well and where they can improve. They stated how the project could be improved if it were to be repeated or taken further (and what would be required to do this – time, resources etc.) | We feel this project has greatly benefitted our scientific and technological skillset, we have become more confident both in the science behind hydropower and with using complex computer systems and machinery. We have also improved our time management skills and ability to work independently. We now understand the history behind energy production and the wide variety of ways in which it can be achieved. This project has also allowed us to gain a wider view on the serious issues associated with energy use and abuse of the Earth’s natural resources and what we as individuals can do to help prevent the advancement of climate change. Also, instead of using thermosetting plastic for the paddles and the tank, we could research different materials because it was quite difficult to mould due to its properties. |
4 – Project-wide criteria | ||
4.1 The student showed understanding of the science behind their project, appropriate to their level Explanation: The subject knowledge and complexity of the project should be at these levels. | Key Stage 5/Level 3 | |
4.2 The student made decisions to direct the project, taking account of ethical and safety issues Evidence: Risk assessments are a good form of evidence that health and safety have been considered at Silver and Gold level. | The project was largely self-directed by the student. Educators/mentors were consulted on technical or subject knowledge matters. | Based on my background research and the data needed to prove or nullify my hypothesis, I provisionally chose method X. I spoke to my mentor about the method to confirm it was appropriate and to get their advice on best practice and things to look out for. I also followed the guidance of the Medical Research Council, particularly their ‘Good research practices: principles and guidelines’ (MRC, 2011). Unfortunately, MRC’s guidance on, ‘Using information about people in health research’ isn’t available yet, as it’s being updated at the time of this project. Therefore, I followed their publication, “Personal Information in Medical Research” (MRC, 2001) and modified my practice where necessary to be compliant with the Data protection act. |
4.3 The student showed creative thinking Explanation: This criterion draws on Bloom’s taxonomy. At Gold level the student showed evidence of working at the, “analysing
to creating” levels of cognition. | The student analysed multiple aspects of the project. They developed existing knowledge and ideas from a related field, and/or combined and applied knowledge and ideas from seemingly unrelated areas to create a novel approach or outcome. | In my project I collected both qualitative and quantitative data. While I could have analysed and written up this data by itself, I wanted to link my project back to its wider context and meet the project objects (see introduction paragraph 2).To do, this I accessed and processed open-source data from [xxxxx] which included data on [xxxx]. The code for my program is appendix A and the resulting output file is appendix B. |
4.4 The student identified and overcame problems successfully Evidence: It is highly unlikely a project was problem free. If no problems were encountered, the student should describe problems that could have occurred and how they were avoided. | The student approached problems strategically. They demonstrated a good understanding of the root cause(s) of the problems encountered. They created solutions that were effective, innovative and (if relevant) founded on their research. | Once a suitable diameter for the coil had been achieved, we applied glue to the rails with a hot glue gun which would hold the coil in place. Then, the top faces of the acrylic squares were removed, and further applications of glue secured the whole coil. |
4.5 The student explained their project clearly, in writing or conversation | The student communicated their project in an engaging and informative way to their intended audience – someone with a good amount of scientific literacy but with no background or specialist knowledge of the topic. They used accessible language and structured their project in a logical and easily understood way. They used images, graphs and tables etc., where appropriate, to help communicate information. Their project is mostly free from spelling and grammatically error. | The student has:
|