This article describes how Team Interviews are conducted and evaluated, what judges should focus on, and how interviews are used to identify award candidates. It is written for judges, Judge Advisors, Event Partners, and volunteers.
Definitions of the terms used here are maintained in the central Glossary.
For how interview findings are weighed against other evidence, see Judging Deliberations.
Team Interviews allow Judges to learn directly from students about their engineering process, robot design, teamwork, and season experience. All teams must have an opportunity to be interviewed. Teams that decline an interview are not eligible for Judged Awards, but can still be eligible for Nominated Awards.
Interview Guidelines
- Interviews are typically conducted in the pit area or another public location.
- All teams should be interviewed using the same scheduling method.
- Initial interviews should be approximately 10–15 minutes and similar in length for all teams.
- Award finalists may receive additional follow-up interviews.
- All interviews should be evaluated using the Team Interview Rubric. See this article to download a PDF of the rubric.
Interview Expectations
Judges interview students, not adults, and ask open-ended and follow-up questions as needed. The interview should focus on understanding:
- The team's engineering process
- Robot design and strategy
- Teamwork and project management
- Student ownership and learning
Teams may use their robot, notebook, or code during the interview, but the focus should remain on student discussion rather than presentations or displays.
Judge Responsibilities During Interviews
- Use age-appropriate language.
- Respect cultural and communication differences.
- Give every team an equal opportunity to share.
- Take notes to support evaluations and deliberations.
- Observe professionalism, teamwork, and team conduct.
Interview Evaluation
After each interview, judges complete the Team Interview Rubric privately. The rubric is a sorting tool rather than an automatic determination of award winners; it helps identify teams that demonstrate strong engineering practices, effective communication and teamwork, student-centered behavior, and positive conduct and professionalism. Final award decisions are made through qualitative deliberation, not rubric scores alone.
Identifying Award Candidates
As interviews are completed, judges identify potential award candidates, discuss each team's strengths and evidence with other judges, and use their notes and observations to support final deliberations. Award finalists may receive additional interviews if more information is needed, and judges maintain confidentiality before, during, and after deliberations.