Robotics Guide to Judging: Team Interviews

Section 6: Team Interviews

6.1 Overview

Team interviews are timed conversations between a team and a group of judges, during which judges ask open-ended questions to learn firsthand from the team about their engineering design process. Teams that are finalists for awards may receive additional interviews as judges seek additional information. Teams are typically interviewed in their pit areas or by competition fields. 

Note: RECF Inspire does not follow the guidelines outlined in this section. Please see the RECF Inspire Judging Process for more information.

6.2 Team Interview Guidelines

6.2.1 Scheduling Team Interviews 

Initial team interviews can be conducted without prior notice or at a scheduled time chosen by the team (for example, using a signup sheet or first-come, first-served queue). All teams must be offered interviews under the same system, and teams cannot request specific judges—only an interview time slot. A recommended self-service approach is to assign teams to judge groups via a queuing system, with adjustments made for any conflicts of interest. Each initial team interview typically lasts 8–10 minutes (not to exceed 12–15 minutes) and should be equal for all teams.

All teams must have the opportunity for at least one initial interview. Teams may decline, but they will then be ineligible for judged awards (except volunteer-nominated awards, if offered). The judge advisor should clearly communicate the interview process and deadlines to all teams.

6.2.2 Interview Locations

Initial interviews may be conducted in several ways, but for the RECF Engage and Achieve programs, interviews should always be interactive conversations and not prepared presentations. Interview options include:

1. Pit area interviews: Judges visit teams in their pits with no fixed schedule. Judges can see teams at work, and quickly move through their list of teams to interview. If a team is difficult to locate, judges may approach them when they return from the competition field.
2. Hallway / quiet area interviews: Conducted in public spaces such as hallways, libraries, or cafeterias that may be quieter than the pit area.
3. Stationed judges: Judges are based at tables, with teams directed to them. The judge advisor can manage check-ins to balance workloads and avoid conflicts of interest.

6.2.3 Judges Interview Students, not Adults

Judges should only talk to the student members of the team. If adults want to answer questions, politely remind them that the judges are there to interview the students. The purpose of the interview is for the student team members to explain their design process and answer questions judges may have about their robot, programming, or engineering design process. 

6.2.4 Interview Questions

Some judge advisors create a standardized list of questions for judges to ask that are used for all interviews at that event, which can be helpful for new judges and for standardization. This should not be construed as a rigid script; judges should be free to ask follow-up questions based on student responses. Other events may not use common questions and instead allow judging teams to come up with their own questions to gather information from teams. 

6.2.5 Considerations for Cultural or Communication Style Differences 

Students have varying styles of interacting with judges during the interview process based on individual or cultural differences. Maintaining eye contact, speaking in a loud enough voice to be easily heard, engaging with other speakers, and other engagement norms may differ between students. Judges should do their best to give all teams an opportunity to share their design process during the interview, and should strive to not allow factors that are beyond students’ control to bias their evaluation of the team. 

Judges should avoid using humor or language that could be interpreted as disparaging. For example, “I can’t believe you came up with this on your own!” might be intended as a compliment to the team but could be misinterpreted as the judges believing the team is violating the Code of Conduct by claiming work that is not their own. Judges should be very careful with their language and avoid statements that could be misconstrued.

6.3 Conducting and Ranking Team Interviews

6.3.1 Initial Team Interviews

1. The judge advisor assigns pairs/groups of judges to interview teams with which they have no conflicts of interest. The judge advisor will create a schedule based on the number of teams, available judges, and the event schedule.
   • Judges ask students open-ended questions about their robot and design process. Follow-up questions are asked as needed.
   • Teams can use their robot and its associated equipment, engineering notebook (if available), and code during the interview. However, in the RECF Engage and Achieve programs, judges should engage with students and their robot and not with audio/visual aids such as presentations or displays. 
   • Judges should take notes using the Team Interview Notes form during interviews to support their evaluations and assist with deliberations. 
   • Judges should take pictures of each robot (with team number visible) with attention to special features and/or of the team members to help judges recall details during later deliberations. 
   • If judges are unable to locate a team’s pit area, they should contact the judge advisor for assistance. Catching the team as they leave the field from a match is often the best way to track a team down.
   • Judges should remember that younger students communicate their ideas differently than older students. Judges should use age-appropriate language when asking questions and consider students’ ages when evaluating student responses.
   • Judges can refer to the Single-Page Outline of the Judging Process for brief award descriptions and other useful information.
   • Judges should consider teams’ teamwork, professionalism, interview quality, and conduct.
2. After each interview, judges should privately discuss their notes and observations.

6.3.2    Ranking Interview Candidates

Judges should rank teams for each event award as they conduct interviews. On the Award Candidate Ranking Sheet, judges list the teams they interview on the left side and add all judged awards offered at the event from left to right, following precedence (qualifying awards first, then non-qualifying). The order of qualifying awards is defined in the RECF Robotics Qualifying Criteria.

Judges indicate candidates by placing check marks. The first recommended team for an award receives one check; a stronger later candidate receives one check while the previous team gets a second check (making them 1st and 2nd, respectively). This process continues as interviews progress, creating a ranked short list of candidates for each award.

Below is an example of how this sheet might be filled out by one judge group that is assigned a subset of teams at a larger event. In this example the Build, Create, Think, and Judges Awards have been filled in below. This is a simple way for judges to preliminarily rank their recommendations as they go, with final rankings done after their set of interviews are completed.

6.3.3 Identifying Initial Award Candidates

After interviewing their assigned teams, each judge group selects their top one or two candidates for each award (they do not need to nominate a team for every award). Judges then return to the judges’ room and share their nominations with the rest of the judging panel, often by placing team numbers on sticky notes next to the award descriptions in the Judged Award Descriptions & Criteria. Color-coding by judge group can help organize the input (see picture below).

This creates a shortlist of nominees for each award. If there are many nominations, the judge advisor may ask groups to withdraw weaker candidates after brief discussion. The judge advisor then reorganizes judges to gather additional information through observations (matches, pits) and follow-up interviews to validate and rank the nominees.

6.3.4 Follow-Up Interviews

Award candidates should be cross interviewed by multiple groups of judges. The judge advisor will assign additional interviews as needed during the event. Follow-up interviews for any award contenders should be conducted without notice, preferably in the competition or pit areas. This allows judges to see the team in their workspace and does not give any team an advantage via prior notice.

6.3.4.1 Recommendations for follow-up interviews

• Group judges with relevant expertise for specific awards (e.g., programming experts for the Think Award).
• Re-group judges so they are not judging with the same individuals for increased insight.
• Focus questions on award-specific criteria.
• Do not tell teams which award(s) they’re being considered for.
• Awards other than Design and Innovate do not have rubrics for the follow-up interview.

6.3.4.2 Follow-up interviews for the Innovate & Design Awards

Teams with strong notebooks and strong initial interviews are likely to be candidates for the Design Award and/or the Innovate Award. To give judges more information for comparison and ranking, the Design & Innovate Award Rubric (formerly called the Team Interview Rubric) should be completed for each team by the set of judges that conduct these follow-up interviews. 

Continue to the next section, Guide to Judging: Award Deliberation