Terms & Conditions

Materials align with the educational curriculum and learning objectives.

• Excellent (4): Materials are fully aligned with the educational curriculum and learning objectives, with clear evidence and examples provided.
• Good (3): Materials are mostly aligned with minor areas for improvement or lack minor details.
• Adequate (2): Materials show some alignment but have notable areas that do not connect with curriculum or objectives.
• Poor (1): Materials do not align with the educational curriculum and learning objectives.

How well the competition content's assessment criteria align with educational standards and goals.

• Excellent (4): Assessment criteria are perfectly aligned with educational standards and goals.
• Good (3): Assessment criteria are aligned with educational standards and goals with minor exceptions.
• Adequate (2): Some alignment with educational standards and goals, but inconsistencies are noticeable.
• Poor (1): Little to no alignment with educational standards and goals.

How engaging the competition content is for students, promoting interest and motivation.

• Excellent (4): Content is highly engaging, with evidence of significant interest and motivation among students.
• Good (3): Content is engaging with minor areas that could be more captivating or motivational.
• Adequate (2): Some elements of the content engage students, but others do not.
• Poor (1): Content fails to engage students and does not promote interest or motivation.

Use of interactive tools, technologies and resources, and opportunities for students to collaborate with peers.

• Excellent (4): Exceptional use of interactive tools, technologies, and resources that significantly enhance learning. Clear opportunities for peer collaboration are embedded and well-utilized.
• Good (3): Good use of tools and opportunities for collaboration, but with some areas not fully exploited or needing improvement.
• Adequate (2): Adequate use of tools with some interactive elements; collaboration opportunities are present but not fully effective.
• Poor (1): Poor or no use of interactive tools; very limited or no opportunities for collaboration.

Submissions place technology at the center of building advanced learning skills, enabling students to move to a higher cognitive level and ensuring that they are equipped to meet the challenges of a changing world.

• Excellent (4): Technology is central and effectively enables students to reach higher cognitive levels, fully preparing them for future challenges.
• Good (3): Technology is well-integrated and supports advanced learning, with minor gaps in preparation for future challenges.
• Adequate (2): Technology is somewhat integrated but is not fully effective in enhancing cognitive skills or preparation for the future.
• Poor (1): Technology is poorly integrated and does not facilitate advanced learning skills or future challenges.

Submissions integrate technology into the existing curriculum to bring real-world relevance to the content students learn.

• Excellent (4): Technology integration is seamless and brings a high level of real-world relevance to the learning content.
• Good (3): Technology adds to real-world relevance, but some content areas lack a practical connection.
• Adequate (2): Some use of technology provides real-world relevance, but it is inconsistently applied across the curriculum.
• Poor (1): Technology use does not effectively connect to real-world scenarios or relevance.

Submissions use technology tools and devices as a gateway to interactive learning experiences rather than simply a tool to serve up content consumption.

• Excellent (4): Technology is used innovatively to create interactive and dynamic learning experiences beyond content delivery.
• Good (3): Technology is used for interactivity, but some tools are still used mainly for content delivery.
• Adequate (2): Limited interactivity; technology is predominantly used for delivering content with few interactive experiences.
• Poor (1): Technology is used solely for content consumption with no interactive learning experiences.

The uniqueness and creativity demonstrated in the composition and design of the starter pack, and creative elements that make the starter pack stand out.

• Excellent (4): The Starter Pack's composition and design are highly creative and unique, with standout elements that are clearly documented and demonstrated.
• Good (3): The Starter Pack shows creativity and uniqueness in its composition and design, with minor areas lacking innovation.
• Adequate (2): Some creative elements are present, but the Starter Pack lacks features that make it stand out.
• Poor (1): The Starter Pack shows little to no creativity or uniqueness.

How effectively the starter pack contributes to measurable improvements in the learning experience (compared to traditional methods).

• Excellent (4): The Starter Pack delivers clear, measurable improvements in the learning experience compared to traditional methods, supported by evidence.
• Good (3): The Starter Pack shows measurable improvements over traditional methods, with some gaps in the evidence.
• Adequate (2): Some improvement over traditional methods is claimed, but it is limited or hard to measure.
• Poor (1): No measurable improvement over traditional methods is shown.

The extent to which the starter pack enhances the overall learning process and educational outcomes.

• Excellent (4): The Starter Pack significantly enhances the overall learning process and leads to clearly improved educational outcomes.
• Good (3): The Starter Pack enhances the learning process and outcomes, with some areas of limited impact.
• Adequate (2): The Starter Pack makes a modest contribution to the learning process, with limited effect on outcomes.
• Poor (1): The Starter Pack makes little to no contribution to the learning process or educational outcomes.