communication department

Volume XIX Number 7

A Bright Idea: Training and Mentoring for Competition Judges

Through trial and error, the Carolina Chapter STC has developed a training and mentoring program that is relevant to judges with all levels of experience. The chapter most recently fine-tuned its series of events during the judging process last fall.

To begin the process, a member of the competitions committee organized a social for experienced judges at a Greek restaurant. Competitions committee manager Ann-Marie Grissino explained that the aim was to recognize the judges for their contributions and also solicit their tips for new judges; this advice was then used in the judges’ training session held the following month.

At the opening session of the training held in mid-October, judges learned basic information about each of the three competitions (online, technical publications, and art). The judges were then split into three groups, one for each competition. The experienced judges shared their tips and knowledge with the respective groups. The competition entries, which had been submitted by the end of September, were grouped into sets, and judges were asked which they would be interested in judging based on their interests and expertise.

After three or four judges were assigned to each set of entries (each entry must have three judges), Grissino asked the judges of each set to meet their team members and exchange contact information. A similar process had been used during judges’ training sessions in previous years, Grissino explained. “When making up the judging teams, we identify new versus experienced judges and try to get an experienced judge or two on each team. We spread out the experience. That way, we’re using the experienced judges as mentors to new judges.”

Once the teams of judges received the entries they were to evaluate, they were asked to complete their review by Thanksgiving. Each judge was responsible for looking at between three and five entries, depending on the entries’ complexity and depth. In years past, judging was performed before or after Thanksgiving, depending on when the October training session was held. The Carolina chapter judges then participated in a best-of-show judging session in early December.

During the judging process, the competition managers reviewed samples of the evaluations prepared by the judges to ensure quality and substance of content and to examine where the training was successful or in need of improvement.

After the competition, entrants received surveys allowing them to share their thoughts on the judges’ comments and process. Grissino said, “We received a great deal of good feedback from entrants who said that the judges’ comments are thoughtful and insightful.”

Grissino shared ideas that her chapter has used for training its judges. In past years, games and themes have been included as part of these training sessions, including the Star Trek theme it focused on two years ago. Using themes for training has resulted in varying levels of success.

The chapter also tried a one-day program that incorporated the judges’ training session followed by the judging itself. Grissino remembers it “was too long a day, too hard for us to get facilities with the right equipment, [and] too costly if we had to rent equipment and get it set up right.” She has also found that planning two training sessions to accommodate those who could not make it the first time did not yield much higher attendance and did not allow for the judging teams to meet each other.

Grissino has found that it consistently works to separate the attendees into three smaller groups as described above, rather than attempting to hold a discussion with one group of forty people. She also noted that a Saturday morning coffee and continental breakfast setup seems to work well for the training sessions.

The Carolina chapter typically trains between forty and sixty judges each year, Grissino said.