Rules and Regulations for a jury member of the Olympiad (theoretical round) and translators
There is an obligation of ANRAO authorities to translate these rules
and regulations from English to native language
of team leaders. (Starting after the IAO-2004 this
translation have to be done in written form as an obligatory part
of application from an organization from a country to be national ANRAO or to
continue to be national ANRAO.)
Initial originals of the instructions are written in
Russian,
originals of the instructions are written in English since 2003.
General information and recommendations:
— One of the team leaders from every team has
to take part in work of jury of theoretical round. Only one: neither more jury members nor none of them are possible.
Jury member from the team should be the same for all periods of work of jury
(maybe a few days, as usual it is the second part of the Day of Theoretical
round, full next two days and final jury meeting in the late evening before the
Day of Closing ceremony).
— It is necessary to inform
organizers in advance who will be a jury member.
— Observers from non-participating states may be included into jury for
theoretical round.
Requirements for jury member of theoretical round (i.e. requirements for one of team leaders):
— Astronomy.
To be a specialist in astronomy or astronomy education, capable to solve
problems of a level of the IAO and APAO, understand students’ solutions
(including ones using unusual ways) and a little higher.
— Languages. To know Latin and Cyrillic alphabets, English language and at
least some 'key words' in Russian. Jury member have to know English in a level
enough to understand solutions of students in English and to communicate with
other jury members about these solutions.
Note (after IAO-2002): Not all jury members followed this requirements and did not understand even the main 'key words' in the students' copybooks like "×èñòîâèê" (Clean copy) or "×åðíîâèê" (Rough copy or Draft copy) in Russian and so sometimes confused them. Or they miss "Ñì. ðèñ. â ÷åðíîâèêå" (See the picture in rough copy), etc.
— Translation
of solutions. Jury members should ask to translate solutions from the
unknown for them languages (to English, Russian or other understandable for
both people language).
Note (after IAO-2002): Some jury members did not ask to translate solutions from the unknown for them languages. Of course, sometimes translation from some languages not necessary since one may understand formulae and general way of solutions in such a languages as Portuguese, Swedish, Russian, Serbian, Italian, etc. Nevertheless it is evident that nobody non-native may understand such a way in (for example) Armenian, Chinese or Korean languages. So there were a few episodes during the Olympiad when an initial mark of evaluation (when the jury member decided that translation is not necessary) was 0 or 1 but later (after request from a native language jury member to listen for translation) it was changed upto 4 or 5. It means that some jury members overestimate their own linguistic possibilities.
— To be
familiar with the rules and regulations for a participant of the Olympiad.
Translation of problems before rounds:
— One of
the team leaders from every team has to translate texts of the problems from
Russian or English (written text on paper is provided by Organizing Committee)
to native language of participants and prepare envelopes with the materials for
every student of his team. Only one:
neither more team leaders nor none of them are possible to make this
procedure. As usual translation to be done by the team leader – jury member,
but it is not obligatory. The translations must be made only by handwritten way
using blue or violet (but not black) pen, and not by pencil.
Note: The rule of handwritten way does not concern translations done by the organisers to other languages, for example, translation to Chinese at IAO-2005.
— Observers from non-participating states may present at the
translations.
— No discussion on the subject of the problems and on possibilities to
include/exclude some information is possible during the translation.
Nevertheless, misprints in the original texts to be corrected.
Note (after IAO-2002): Versions (dialects) of English and Russian languages may be different. Translation from official texts in English or Russian may be done to own version of English or Russian.
— The sequence of the sentences in the translation should be the same as
in the original texts.
— The units in the translation (grams, for example) should be the same
as in the original texts.
— The time
for translation is:
– for the theoretical and practical rounds – 2 hours 15 minutes;
– for the observational round – 45 minutes.
—
Translation is started before rounds beginning:
– for the theoretical and practical rounds – 3 hours 15 minutes before;
– for the observational round – as usual 1 hour 30 minutes before.
— Translation should be finished by translators (final text written on
the headed form of the round) not later than
– 60 minutes before the theoretical and practical rounds;
– 45 minutes before the observational round;
this time is necessary for technical jobs – copying of the texts, forming files for every
participant, etc.
— It is forbidden to have switched-on mobile telephones and mobile
Internet by translating team leaders (and observers) from the beginning of
the translation till the round starting; any function of mobile phone cannot be
used, calculator, for example.
— Any translator may arrive to the room of translations later than
official time, but it is forbidden to go out of the room of translations
earlier than the round starts.
— Notebooks. It is permitted to use own notebooks (with internal power
supply) as dictionaries.
— It is an obligation of the translating team leader to form files with
all necessary texts and supplement materials for every participant of his or
her team.
Checking of students’ solutions:
— It is
quite recommended to solve problems yourself to understand its level of
difficulty and find other possible solutions.
— Sketches
for solutions. Take into account that the sketch, as usual, shows one
approach for solution. But it may be another or even a few others solutions of
the problem. It is usual for Astronomy Olympiads that many problems have a few
correct approaches to solution. It is important difference of our Olympiads
from other International Science Olympiads.
— Every problem of theoretical round to be
checked and evaluated by three
jury members: two ones check the solution through all papers of the students (of the group)
and the third is the native jury member
(team leader of the student). Translation
of solution for two first jury members may be done by the third (native) one. There
are only two checkings if the native jury member is
simultaneously “through all of the students” jury member for this problem.
Evaluation criteria:
— Evaluation
mark. 100% of points for solution of 1 problem is 8
points. The whole correct solution to be evaluated as
— Evaluation
criteria. In the evaluation of students’ solutions of theoretical problems
the most attention should be done for understanding nature (physics, astronomy)
of the effects but not for calculations. As usual the following gradation is
recommended (roughly):
– Qualitative understanding
of nature of effects of the problem –
– Necessary for solution
formulae or (if formulae not necessary) for quantitive
criteria of the nature of the effect –
(As usual it is not too easy to divide these two criteria.)
– Algebraically (or
logically) correct solving –
– Final calculations – 1-
– Correct picture (if it is
necessary due to requirements) –
– Final conclusion (if
necessary) –
If solution
is almost full, only arithmetical error has been done: total mark 6-
— A participant cannot be
"barred" (or disqualified) because of his knowledge, i.e. for using
facts (numerical values, formulae, etc.) known to him, which may be not evident
for jury members (a mass of asteroid Vesta, for
example).
— Evaluation
of qualitative problems. In the evaluation of qualitative students’
explanation of ground for final answer is necessary. Brief answer such as
“yes”, “no”, “don’t changed” is not a solution. Make attention for quantitative
criteria of effects is the solutions.
— Rough copy. A jury member have to see
also to rough copy of solution if it is mentioned in student’s copybook “see
rough copy” in English or Russian.
Considerations that student gave into account in rough copy to be evaluated in
such degree that they don’t contradict to final solution in clean copy. In
particular if solutions in clean copy and in rough copy are different, then
clean copy to be evaluated only.
Preliminary native checking of solutions:
— At first every jury member check their own students papers and emphasize by red pen the main parts of solutions (either positive and negative features, notes like “galaxy size” may be also done). Translating is not necessary on this stage.
Note (after IAO-2006): This procedure recommended in order making easier jobs of “through all the papers” checking and evaluating.
“Through all papers” checking and evaluating of solutions:
— After the previous procedure done, every
member checks solutions of actual problem through all papers. As usual there
are two problems for every jury member that he/she has to check and evaluate
through all the papers. In this case one of the problems to be in group a and other one – in group b. The
situations of the same pairs of jury members for different problems chekings should be avoided as well.
— Before the evaluating the member has to check solutions of a few
students to prepare a table of grading that concretised the recommendations for
evaluating mentioned in the previous chapter. Points and its abbreviations
should be written in English in this table. Do not hesitate to ask the
Theoretical Round Jury Chairman for recommendations. After that the jury member
should fill the table-headers in the evaluating sheet of the problems and fill
every column by figures. The last two columns as usual are: “equivalent correct
parts of other ways of solution” and “extra conclusions or corrected
additions”.
— Two jury members who check and evaluate the same problem (as
different members) have to do it independently.
Note: in the previous version of the rules this point existed in soft words – “jury members should do second and third checking without knowledge of other marks” – but many jury members did not follow it.
Native evaluating of solutions:
— After two “through all of the students” checkings done, evaluating sheets filled and given to the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman (or jury secretary), jury members may work with their students’ papers and make “native evaluation”. Jury members must do their native evaluations without knowledge of other marks.
Note (after IAO-2005): This sequence is necessary to avoid political negotiations between jury members and “points markets”.
Recommendations:
— To have
own sheet of paper for own notes about every solution and preliminary marks.
— Do not
hesitate to ask the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman for recommendations in
unusual and non-standard solutions. As usual the Theoretical Round Jury
Chairman is composer of the set of problems so may easily understand whether
some conclusion in student’s solution correct or not.
Final mark for the solution, procedures of its calculation:
— If the
native jury member is simultaneously “through all of the students” jury member
for this problem, his/her mark to be placed into the “native mark” column in
minutes; the mark is also considered as “native” in the case of two jury
members are working in-group and one of them is native.
— After
three marks done they are to type into computer by the jury secretaries.
Solutions with large differences between three (or two) marks may be rechecked
by the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman and an
independent commission around him/her (using the written criteria of the jury members) and their marks are to
be used instead. In other cases the final mark for the solution as usual (*)
calculated as average value of these three or two marks.
Note (after IAO-2005): An independent body of rechecking (the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman who does not make chekings and an independent commission around him/her) is necessary since in the previous system jury members were forced to be arbiters and advocates of their students simultaneously, there were stress situations.
— (*) First
exception from the previous point. There is a procedure for stimulation correct
checking solutions of native students. For every jury member
calculation of the mean difference between his/her “native marks” and
“non-native marks” (ones of other jury members for the same solution) to be
done. All “native marks” of about 20% jury members whose
the differences are the largest will not be taken into account.
Note: The procedure cannot work without the distinct sequence of operations: of at first – “non-native evaluations” and only after – “native evaluations”.
Note: the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman informs individually each of these three jury members about this exception for his/her “native marks” and this information is hidden for others.
— (*)
Second exception from the previous point. There is a procedure for stimulation
correct checking “through all of the students” solutions and correct behaviour
of jury member. For every jury member calculation of the mean
module difference between his/her “non-native marks” and other marks (ones of
other jury members for the same solution) to be done. Problems with the
largest difference may be rechecked by the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman, in
the case of large difference the marks of the jury member to be cancelled and
the marks of the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman to be used instead.
Note: the Theoretical Round Jury Chairman informs individually jury members about the mentioned above situation. Situations with the “points market”, pressure between jury members, tendentious evaluating and other negative features are considered as also very negative. In the case of repeating at one of the next Olympiad, the person cannot be a jury member later, it means that he/she maybe other (non-jury) team leader or observer at the next Olympiads and this information to be presented for the corresponding ANRAO.
Final Jury meeting. Voting:
— At the conclusion of all the rounds,
and once all the results are available, the jury members will meet and look at
the overall performance of all the students without knowing their names or
nationality (the so called "blind minutes"). The diapasons of possible numbers of students to be awarded with
the Diploma of every rank are defined by convention as percents of the total
number of the participants. They
will then decide on the cut off level for the I Diploma, II Diploma, III
Diploma (corresponding to the Gold, Silver and Bronze Medal Certificates) and
Diploma of Participation. It is recommended to vote for that cut off level
where the gap between the total scores is largest.
— Every jury member may vote “pro”, “contra”
or “neutral” for every proposal. Nevertheless every “contra” or “neutral”
voting has to be motivated by some alternative proposal (that have to inside
the convention as well).
Anywhere every jury member has to vote “pro” some of the alternative proposal.
— The decision of
the Jury Board is final. Nobody can change the decision:
neither Local Organizing Committee nor Olympic Coordinating Council nor
Chairman of the Olympiad.
IAO 1998 SAO,
IAO 1999 Crimea, IAO 2000
SAO, IAO 2001 Crimea, IAO 2002 SAO,
IAO 2003 Stockholm, IAO 2004
Crimea, IAO 2005 Beijing, APAO-2005 Irkutsk,
IAO 2006 Mumbai, APAO 2006
Vladivostok, IAO 2007 Crimea, APAO 2007 Xiamen,
IAO 2008 Trieste, APAO 2008
Bishkek, APAO 2009 Damyang, IAO 2009 Hangzhou. OCC.