Information

Important Dates & Times

Tuesday December 01, 2020 at 9:00 AM
Monday February 08, 2021 at 8:00 PM
Friday March 19, 2021 at 8:00 PM
Sunday March 21, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Sunday March 28, 2021 at 5:00 PM
Friday March 26, 2021 at 1:00 PM

ScienceMONTGOMERY has four special rules:

1. For any project involving Human Subjects where there is any interaction between the Researcher and the Human Subjects, a signed Human Informed Parental Consent Form is required for every Human Subject under 18 years of age.
2. ScienceMONTGOMERY uses categories that are different those of ISEF; these categories may be combined if there are insufficient entries in any particular category. 
3. In a given Category, Individual and Team Projects are judged together as a group. 
4. Your one-page Abstract may be submitted in any format. The ISEF Abstract Form is a guide, not a requirement for ScienceMONTGOMERY. 

INTEL ISEF Rules - As an affiliated fair, ScienceMONTGOMERY adheres to the International Science and Engineering Fair Rules. Students, teachers, sponsors, and judges should be familiar with the ISEF Rules as they apply to specific types of projects.

Before starting your research, click on the Fair tab and choose ISEF Rules. 

Attention! All students and their parents/guardians MUST sign and date Approval Form 1B before starting any experimentation. Depending upon the project chosen, there may be additional forms that must be completed before starting any experimentation.

ISEF Rules Wizard The zFairs website allows you to use the ISEF Rules Wizard to determine which forms you need to enter and then complete your project. All the forms can be completed on-line with digital signature or uploaded upon completion.

If you have any questions about rules and regulations, you can email them to src@sciencemontgomery.org 

 

ScienceMontgomery Logo.png

ScienceMONTGOMERY Winter 2021 Update

Congratulations to our 2020 ISEF Finalists:

Ben Nachod (Poolesville HS): Analysis of the Degradation and Biogas Yield of the Anaerobic Digestion of PHBV, PLA, Cellulose, and PET Bioplastics with Wastewater Sludge Inoculum

Dhruv Pai (Montgomery Blair HS): PrediGen: Tracing Genealogy of Medical Devices
Anjan Sesetty and Ishaan Jain (Poolesville HS and Richard Montgomery HS, respectively): A Novel Obstructive Sleep Apnea Management System

Ambrose Yang (Montgomery Blair HS): Analogues of the Robin-Lagarias Criteria for the Riemann Hypothesis

Alternate: Ethan Tang (Montgomery Blair HS): Characterizing Cesium Iodide and Bismuth Germinate Scintillators and Phoswich Detectors for Gamma-Ray Space Telescopes

Our ScienceMONTGOMERY Family’s Recent Recognitions Include:

Chesapeake Bay Bowl 2020 (First Place, Team Members): Katherine Lei, Simoni Mishra Bethesda Magazine Top Teens: Viruni Lewwandoowa
Putnam Fellow: Daniel Zhu
Coca-Cola Scholars: Regional Finalist: Amanda Liu; Semifinalists: Eric Hao, Shreeya Khurana Goldwater Scholars:Sambuddha Chattopadhyay, Ethan Chen

Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans Fellow: Sherman Leung

Maryland Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: Third Place: Dhruv Pai

National Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: Third Place, Math/CS Oral Presentations: Michelle Tang; First Place,

Math/CS Poster Presentations: Sadhana Lolla

Maryland BioGENEius Challenge: First Place: Sreejato Chatterjee; Third Place: Frank Horrigan

MathWorks Math Modeling Challenge: Technical Computing Paper & Communication of Results First Place: Teammates Jesse Silverberg, Ambrose Yang, Shawn Zhao

Prudential Spirit of Community Awards: Distinguished Finalist: Dhruv Pai

New York Times Student STEM Writing Contest Winner: Vivian Li

American Statistical Society: 2020 Fellow: Laura Lee Johnson, PhD

AIAA National Capital Section 2020 Essay Contest: First Place Winners: Yash Anand, Dennis Chunikhin, Jenna Shi, Sujay Swain, Ethan Tang

AVASC Foundation ISEF Special Award: Second Place: Ishaan Jain, Anjan Sesetty

3M Young Scientist Challenge: Maryland 2020 State Merit Winner: Sudhish Swain

Society for Science & the Public STEM Action Grant: inteGIRLS: Joy Shi, Laura Yao, Sophia Weng, Avani Ahuja, Rithik

Sebastian Cambridge Judge Business School Worshipful Company of Marketors’ 2019 Award for Outstanding Performance in Marketing: Neil Davey
Broadcom MASTERS Top 300: Joseph Simak, Sudhish Swain, Yun Yeung

Regeneron STS Scholars: Yash Anand, Jerry Shen, Timothy Qian

Prudential Spirit of Community Awards: Maryland State Honoree: Derek Yan; Maryland Distinguished Finalists: Dhruv Pai, Matthew Casertano

ScienceMONTGOMERY Winter 2020 Update 

Congratulations to our 2019 ScienceMONTGOMERY Grand (ISEF) Prize Winners:

Biology: Allie Amerman (Wheaton HS): Tuning Polyplex Physiochemical Properties to Improve Anti-Tumor Responses
Computer Science: Ishana Shastri (Poolesville HS): Region-based Fully Convolutional Network (R-FCN) for Localization of Tumors in MammogramsEngineering: Sanjit Thangarasu (Poolesville HS): AccessO2: An Innovative, Non-Electric, Life-Saving, Oxygen Concentrator
Physics: Kevin Qian (Blair HS): Heisenberg-Scaling Measurement Protocol for Analytic Functions with Quantum Sensor Networks
Alternate: Mathematics: Naveen Durvasula (Blair HS): On the Communication Complexity of Stable Matching Under Metric Space Market Embeddings

We proudly announce our delegation received these awards at the 2019 Intel ISEF (Phoenix):

Allie Amerman: Third Place, Grand Awards
Ishana Shastri: First Place, Fondazione Bruno Kessler Special Awards; Third Place, Grand Awards
Sanjit Thangarasu: First Place, USAID Science for Development Special Awards, Fourth Place, Grand Awards Kevin Qian: Second Place, Grand Awards

Our ScienceMONTGOMERY Family’s Recent Recognitions Include:
Intel ISEF 2019: Garyk Brixi (team member, representing Northeastern New Mexico Fair): King Abdul-Aziz & His Companions

Foundation for Giftedness and Creativity: Scholarship for Practical Robotics Innovation; Sigma Xi: First Place, Physical Science;

USAID Science for Development: Second Place; Grand Awards: Third Place
Montgomery Blair High School Coach of the Year (2018-19): Ms. Angelique Bosse
McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT Inaugural McGovern Fellow: Jonathan Gootenberg
Society for Neuroscience DC Region 2019 Brain Bee Second Place Winner: Ashley Thommana
Association for Computing Machinery 2018-19 Cutler-Bell Prize in High School Computing: Naveen Durvasula
Junior Science and Humanities Symposium: DC Region Poster Presentation Winner: Steven Qu
C-Span StudentCam Documentary Competition: Second Place: Isaac Newman; Honorable Mention: Dhruv Pai
USA Biology Olympiad Semifinalist: Katherine Lei
Google Science Fair Maryland Winner: Sanjit Thangarasu
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship: Jared Lichtman, Eric Neyman
Romanian Masters of Mathematics Competition: Gold Medal & Winning Team Member: Daniel Zhu
International Math Olympiad: Gold Medalist and First Place Team Member: Daniel Zhu
National Merit Scholars: Soumith Gadila, Reethi Padmanabhan, Ananya Tadikonda, Meili Bowden, Deepa Kori, Clara Benadon, Alice Turnham, Vincent Bian, Jerry Yang, Isaac Applebaum, Grace Zhou, Patrick Kim, Shwetha Kunnan Maryland BioGENEius Challenge: Winner: Faith Cheung; Third Place: Seo Jin Lee
Presidential Scholar: Garyk Brixi
Coca-Cola Scholar: Grace Kim

National Junior Science & Humanities Symposium: Third Place, Mathematics & CS Poster Presentations: Naveen Durvasula Maryland Envirothon: Second Place (Team members): Sophia Weng, Katherine Lei, Justin Zhang, Matthew Shu

Montgomery County Youth Volunteer of the Year; President’s Volunteer Service Award: Dhruv Pai

National Security Agency Best Scientific Cybersecurity Paper Competition Winner: George Klees
University of Maryland 2019 Mathematics Competition: Third Place: Timothy Qian
American Mathematical Society “Who Wants to be a Mathematician?” National Championship: Third Place: Timothy Qian
Regeneron Science Talent Search Top 300 Scholars: Katie Kolodner, Seo Jin Lee, Sadhana Lolla, Tarun Mattikalli, Michelle Tang, Victoria Yin

Davidson Fellows: Evan Hu, Daniel Zhu

Broadcom MASTERS Top 300:

Anuprova Bhowmik, Dennis Chunikhin, Ishaan Jain, Anjan Sesetty

Young Scientists Journal Remote Poster Competition: First Place, Life Sciences: Dhruv Pai

 

 

What to Expect During the Fair



Behavioral and Social Sciences
Includes psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, learning, perception and educational assessment using methods such as surveys, interviews, observation, modeling, and laboratory or field experimentation
Biology
Includes plant biology, animal biology, biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology, microbiology, health and disease, dentistry, and marine biology
Chemistry
Includes nature and composition of matter, geology, and pollution
Computer Science
Includes hardware and software development, internet networking and communications, graphics, simulations and virtual reality
Engineering
Includes technology, practical applications of scientific principles, design, aeronautics, and transportation
Mathematics
Includes development of formal logical systems or various numerical and algebraic computations, and the application of these principles—such as calculus, geometry, abstract algebra, number theory, statistics, combinatorics, and probability
Physics
Includes theories, principles, and laws governing energy and motion, astronomy, weather, electricity, magnetism and optics

Category Judging Criteria for Behavioral Sciences, Biology, 
Chemistry & Physics 

Scientific Methodology   (25 pts)

  • The problem or hypothesis was clearly stated
  • Dependent and independent variables were correctly identified and an appropriate experimental design was used to study the problem
  • The student/team was careful and skillful in carrying out the project (including the accurate recording of data)
  • The sample size was adequate and included appropriate controls
  • The conclusions were supported by data and addressed the stated hypothesis

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

  • The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
  • The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
  • The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
  • The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
  • The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

  • The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
  • The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
  • The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
  • An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
  • This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

Category Judging Criteria for Computer Science 

Scientific Methodology  (25 pts)

  • The project had a clear objective
  • The project was an improvement over current computer science inquiry
  • The student/team was careful and skillful in carrying out the project
  • The project provided the execution of the algorithm to demonstrate the utilization of the mathematical analysis
  • For projects in theoretical computer science – The project involved creating/writing a new mathematical algorithm to solve a problem in programming
  • For projects in applied computer science - The student/team created a simulation or a model, using computer science to explain, demonstrate, or make understandable existing scientific understanding

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

  • The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
  • The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
  • The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
  • The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
  • The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

  • The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
  • The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
  • The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
  • An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
  • This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

Category Judging Criteria for Engineering 

Scientific Methodology   (25 pts)

  • The project had a clear objective
  • The solution was derived from sound scientific and engineering principles
  • The solution was workable (i.e. safe, practical, economically feasible)
  • The solution was an improvement over previous alternatives
  • The solution was tested for performance under the conditions of use

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

  • The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
  • The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
  • The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
  • The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
  • The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

  • The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
  • The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
  • The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
  • An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
  • This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

Category Judging Criteria for Mathematics 

  • Scientific Methodology   (25 pts)
  • The project had a clear objective 
  • The objective was original 
  • The mathematical approach (proofs, graphs, formulas, etc.) was clearly explained
  • The project was carried out correctly
  • For projects in theoretical mathematics - The student/team understood the project’s potential applications
  • For projects in applied mathematics - The student/team understood the underlying mathematical theory

Presentation - Oral and Written   (25 pts)

  • The description of the project was clear, adequately detailed and well documented
  • The student/team showed good understanding of the problem and its significance, the methodology used and possible applications of the conclusions
  • The student/team understood the limitations of the project and the data/results
  • The student/team had ideas on what to do next and/or what to do differently next time
  • The student/team was able to answer questions about the project in a thoughtful way 

Originality/Creativity; Independence; Effort/Thoroughness; Learning Experience   (25 pts)           

  • The student/team showed creativity in choosing the problem and/or the methodology used
  • The student/team worked independently; team members all contributed to a team project
  • The background research was satisfactory and appropriate references were cited
  • An appropriate amount of time and effort was put into the project
  • This was a valuable learning experience for the student/team

 

Login

 

Create Account

 
 
4.1.7727.31122
Powered by: zFairs.com | Privacy | Terms of Use
JavaScript is required to run this site. Please enable your browser to run JavaScript.