The goal of the Editorial Communications Category is to encourage undergraduate engineering students to present a viewpoint on the social, economic, and / or environmental impact of any current technological issue.
Engineers are often required to investigate an issue, form a viewpoint, and then convince others of their opinion. In this category, competitors must identify a technological issue, form an opinion and present a convincing well-supported argument. Winning entries will combine thorough research, a convincing viewpoint, and a dynamic presentation.
One (1) team per school consisting of up to two (2) people may be accepted into the Editorial Communications category.
Each team is required to submit a one (1) page abstract that summarizes their topic. The abstract will be reviewed by the OEC Organizing Committee to assess the suitability of the topic for inclusion in Editorial Communications and will be given to the judges for information prior to the start of judging.
Teams in Editorial Communications are required to deliver an oral presentation at the competition.
Competitors will be given:
- Access to a data projector (with computer or laptop connection available) and overhead projector
- Max. five (5) minutes to setup prior to their presentation
- Max. twenty (20) minutes to present
- A ten (10) minute question period will follow the presentation during which the judges and the general public will be allowed to ask questions, with priority given to the judges' questions.*
*Note: Time constraints may be subject to change.
The most important aspects of evaluation in this category are depth of understanding of the topic, formation and delivery of a convincing viewpoint, effective communication, and the quality of the presentation. The depth of the team's understanding of the topic will be assessed during the question period. The marking scheme for the Editorial Communications Category is as follows:
Delivery of Viewpoint - 25%
- Did the topic have a sociological impact and was the editorial issue clearly stated?
- Was the team's stance on the issue clearly apparent and were they consistent in their opinion?
- Were the arguments convincing and well supported?
Research, Depth and Accuracy - 20%
- Were the facts presented correct and complete?
- Were all areas of the topic sufficiently covered?
- Did all members of the team display a strong understanding of the topic?
Technical Complexity - 15%
- Was the topic of sufficient technical complexity?
- Was the team appropriately challenged by the subject matter?
Presentation - 20%
- Was emphasis given to appropriate areas?
- Was there a clear introduction and conclusion?
- Did the seminar flow naturally from point to point?
- Was time used appropriately?
- Did both team members participate equally in the presentation?
Use of Audio-Visual Aids - 10%
- Were the audio-visual aids used appropriately?
- Did they help illustrate key points?
- Were the slides or overheads clear and easy to read?
- Were any special or unique audio-visual aids used?
Interest Generated - 10%
- Did the seminar create and maintain audience interest?
Competitors will be assessed a penalty for not presenting within the allotted time frame.
Past Winning Topics
- The Environmental Impact of the Extraction from the Alberta Oil Sands
- The Social, Political, and Economic Impact of Tactical Nuclear Weapons
- The X-Prize: Technological Innovation and Economics