Kentucky Association for Academic Competition

113 Consumer Lane

Frankfort, KY 40601

502.223.0088

Fax: 502.223.0430

kaac@kaac.com

http://kaac.com

Future Problem Solving

FPS Evaluation Manual All Divisions

Component Event of

www.fpspi.org

Materials for this manual have been adapted from the FPSPI

competitive materials to meet KAAC Competition Standards

www.fpspi.org

All material 2014 KAAC, Inc., all rights reserved

2014-2015 FPS Scoring Reminders

1. College students who are at least one year past high school graduation may coach

or evaluate at any level.

Items 2-8 reference Underlying Problems with critical errors.

2. If a UP is a Restatement, the Focus and Adequacy scores must be a one (1).

3. If the PURPOSE is repeated in the Condition Phrase and/or the Key Verb Phrase,

it is considered Circular and the Underlying Problem will receive a one (1) in Focus

and Adequacy.

4. The use of an Absolute Verb in the Key Verb Phrase such as stop, prevent,

eliminate, etc. MUST be awarded a 1 in Focus and Adequacy.

5. If the UP has NO Purpose assign a Focus and Adequacy score of one (1) whether

or not the evaluator can impose a Purpose.

6. In circumstances where the UP is a Restatement; is Circular; or uses an

Absolute Verb; has an Imposed Purpose; or is Without a Purpose, the team

may receive credit for a maximum of 25% of the total (16 MG/HS and 8 EL)

possible solutions. (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions).

This will be referred to as the 25% Rule during FPS Clinics.

7. Assign a score of 1 point for Relevance, Effectiveness and Impact if the Action Plan has little to no effect; OR UP is either Circular, a Restatement, uses an Absolute Verb, OR is Without a Purpose, OR the UP scored one (1) in Focus and Adequacy.

8. Each booklet advancing to Governor’s Cup State Finals will be pre-scored by KAAC FPS State Trainers to determine if the UP merits a Focus and Adequacy score of one (1). In addition, each booklet’s Criteria and Grid will be pre-scored in order to establish consistency throughout First Round of evaluations. The UPs and Criteria and Grid will be pre-scored by teams of two (2) a minimum of three (3) times and all must be in agreement when assigning Focus and Adequacy scores of one (1).

9. The population or stakeholders of the Future Scene will be a specific individual or

group identified within the parameters of the Future Scene.

AFTER attending the 0 or 1 Year FPS Certification clinic: 1. Make a copy of your completed FPS Certification Booklet and Completed MG/HS

Scoresheet. Keep this copy for your records.

2. YOUR BOOKLET FOR CERTIFICATION MUST BE POSTMARKED AND RETURNED TO KAAC, or a legible copy faxed or scanned to 502.223.0430 WITHIN 14 DAYS of attending your clinic. If your scored booklet is not postmarked, or received by the deadline, the booklet WILL NOT be processed for certification. The last date to receive a booklet for certification is December 17th, 2014 no matter when your December clinic is held.

KAAC—FPS Booklet for Certification

113 Consumer Lane

Frankfort, KY 40601 Fax: 502.223.0430

Certification numbers will be available sooner if booklets are scanned or emailed to: bdarnell@kaac.com

Ask for a READ RECEIPT when submitting your booklet. If you do not receive a reply, your booklet did NOT transmit correctly. Check your Junk email

folder and resend by dividing the booklet in two (2) smaller emails.

Processing of FPS Certification Numbers require a minimum of 4-6 weeks.

Please check the website at kaac.com for inquiries about your number before you

call the office.

Before attending the 2+ Years FPS Certification clinic:

1. Check the list of last year’s names and certification numbers to see if you are eligible to take the 2+ FPS online certification.

2. Complete the online FPS Certification by reviewing the following

references: The 2014 FPS Evaluation Manual The 2014 FPS Booklet for Certification The 2014 FPS MG/HS Scoresheet The 2014 FPS 2+ Password (Trainer will give to you at the end of

the clinic)

3. Login with your password at kaac.com and link to the 2+ FPS Certification within 14 days of your session. December attendees will have until December 17th to complete the online quiz.

FPS 2+ PASSWORD IS _____________________.

Table of Contents

FPS HISTORY AND OVERVIEW…………………………………………………….….1

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION....………………….………………………………..2

COMPARISON OF FPS EVENTS…….…………………………….……………………4

SOCIAL MEDIA FUTURE SCENE…..…………………………………...…….……….5

STEP 1 – IDENTIFY CHALLENGES…….……………………….……………………..6

STEP 2 – SELECT an UNDERLYING PROBLEM….…………….………………….10

Structure ……………………………………………………………………10

Qualitative……………………………………………………………………13

UP Examples…………………………………………………………………14

Critical Errors…..……………………………………………………………16

STEP 3 – PRODUCE SOLUTION IDEAS………….…………….………………..…18

STEP 4 – GENERATE AND SELECT CRITERIA…….……………..……………….23

STEP 5 – APPLY CRITERIA to SOLUTION IDEAS (GRID).…………………….25

STEP 6 – DEVELOP an ACTION PLAN…………….………………..………………26

OVERALL SCORE………..……………………………………………….………………31

REMINDERS to COMPLETE SCORESHEET…………..…………….…….…….….33

GENERAL COMMENTS…………..………………………………………….………….36

EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR THE STATE FINALS ………….....……………….…37

SUPPLEMENTAL RESOURCES……………………………………………………..…38

GLOSSARY of TERMS…….….……………………………………………………..39

CATEGORY LIST…..……….….………………………………………………..…..43

TOPIC DESCRIPTORS…….….…………………………………………………….44

SUGGESTED READINGS ……..…………………………………….……….…….45

FPS RULES for COMPETITION…………….………………….…………………….49

2014-2015 GOVERNOR’S CUP and COMPONENT EVENTS CALENDAR

1

FUTURE PROBLEM SOLVING 2014-2015 EVALUATION MANUAL History and Overview

Kentucky Association for Academic Competition (KAAC) welcomes you to the Future Problem Solving (FPS) Program.

This manual has been adapted from the creative program developed by E. Paul Torrance for the FPSP International

Office. The evaluation manual for the Kentucky competitive event referred to as FPS is based on the Global Issues

Problem Solving event at the international level and with the modifications included meets KAAC competition

standards.

FPS teaches students valuable life-skills while involving them in unique future-oriented scenarios. The materials

developed for FPS are designed to help students learn how to think and not what to think. This manual presents an

overview of the FPS process and introduces coaches and evaluators to the components of FPS evaluation to fulfill the

mandatory requirements for participation in the Governor’s Cup and other component events offered by KAAC.

FPS focuses on research, problem solving, and communication. The program requires research, ingenuity and

creativity as a team of four students uses a six-step process to solve future scientific and social problems. Topic areas

for competition are announced in advance; however, the Future Scene is not released until the competition begins.

Because students are the beneficiaries of this program, KAAC requires that FPS coaches and evaluators know both the

nuances of the FPS process and the rules of FPS evaluation. Problem Solving teams require guidance by a

knowledgeable coach. The team coach at any competition level can be a teacher, aide, administrator, parent,

community leader, interested adult, college student (no less than one year after high school graduation is required to

coach or evaluate for the high school or middle grades levels), or high school student (elementary level only).

Two certification rules impact participation in the FPS component of Governor's Cup Competition:

1. The school FPS coach must be certified before the FPS team can participate in District FPS

competition. Certification is obtained by attending a KAAC FPS certification clinic and completing the

requirements within the specified timeframe. If a school does not have an FPS certified coach the

team cannot participate in District competition. The coach does not have to be present during the

competition, but must meet the certification requirement. The team must be accompanied by an adult

representative.

2. Each FPS team competing in District, Regional and State FPS competition must provide a certified

evaluator. Certification is obtained by attending a KAAC FPS certification clinic and completing the

requirements within the specified timeframe. NO COACH OR IMMEDIATE RELATIVE OF AN FPS TEAM

MEMBER MAY EVALUATE IN HIS/HER OWN DISTRICT COMPETITION. A coach in one District may

fulfill the FPS evaluator requirement in another District. For questions, call KAAC for additional information.

Coaches or immediate relatives may evaluate in Regional competition. At this level of competition no one is

assigned to score a booklet from the school the evaluator represents. Schools within the same division within

a District may not share the same evaluator. If a school fails to supply a certified evaluator, the FPS

team cannot participate in the FPS component of Governor's Cup Competition.

The following individuals can earn FPS evaluator certification as your school’s required evaluator:

Community volunteers: government, business & industry, service organizations

Teachers, counselors, principals, and other school personnel

Parents and relatives who have a child on the FPS team may evaluate at Regional and State levels only

FPS coaches from another FPS competition level; FPS coaches from another District may score at any level

The Quick Recall coach

College students who are at least one year past high school graduation may coach or evaluate at any level.

High school students may evaluate in the elementary grade level only

2

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION 2014-2015 Future Problem Solving Program

PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

The primary purpose of evaluation is to provide coaches and students with feedback that allows them to develop and

improve their problem solving skills. Team FPS is performance-based and evaluation is

authentic assessment of the team’s booklet. Because there is no single “right” answer, FPS

employs a variety of strategies to review student work. Specific criteria evaluate performance in

each step. Skill improvement remains the most important aspect of evaluation; however, since

FPS also involves competition, and competitive scoring must be impartial, a secondary purpose

of evaluation is to provide a fair, consistent and reliable method for comparing teams in an FPS

competition.

ATTITUDE

It is essential that evaluators maintain a positive attitude throughout the evaluation process. The central purpose of

the FPS program is to assist students in acquiring better thinking, communicating and problem solving skills.

Evaluation is always completed with this thought in mind. Good evaluators offer constructive feedback and

make students want to improve their problem solving skills. Regardless of the quality of the student effort,

evaluator feedback that is too critical may discourage a team and keep them from improving defeating the purpose of

the program.

It is important for evaluators not to confuse their personal expectations and skill level with that of the teams

represented in an evaluation sample. Evaluators should not confuse the sophistication of the task with that of the

students, but should consider the age/division of the team and the level of competition in constructing positive

feedback. Once an exceptional booklet is noted, it may be easy to expect the same quality from all booklets.

Remember, the completion of an FPS booklet is, by itself, a major accomplishment - possibly more demanding

than anything else the students have attempted as part of their educational experience. Students' work

will delight and/or frustrate the evaluator, but the effort will eventually reward the evaluation task. Providing

consistent positive and constructive feedback is the goal to which all evaluators must aspire.

PREPARATION

Before evaluating booklets for any topic, evaluators should know the topic and develop solid background knowledge of

the competitive topic. The students put tremendous effort into their work. They can really lose respect for

evaluators — no matter how valid the feedback is — if basic understanding of the material is not

obvious. Reading the topic chapter in Readings, Research and Resources, or several articles from the bibliography

(Appendices begin on Page 48), is a good way to gain topic knowledge necessary for evaluation.

While you read and contemplate the ideas presented in the Future Scene and in the scoring briefs for

evaluators to bring a high level of consistency in FPS evaluation, you must not discuss booklets with

other evaluators. Questions regarding scoring should be directed to the FPS and Composition

Coordinator.

SCANNING

When possible before scoring begins, it is recommended that the evaluator read through, or scan, the

assigned sample of booklets to be evaluated. This review should give the evaluator an idea for the

sophistication of the challenges, Underlying Problems, and solution ideas. It also gives the evaluator an

overview of the least common and the most common responses.

SCORESHEET COMPONENTS

Three elements require the evaluator’sr attention on the Future Problem Solving Program scoresheet:

Identification — Fill in the identification portion at the top of each page of the scoresheet before evaluating a

booklet.

3

Feedback — Space is provided on the scoresheet for both general and specific feedback. Feedback is the

most important aspect of the evaluation process and is required.

Scoring — Use the descriptors on the scoresheet for each criterion to determine the numerical score.

FEEDBACK

Feedback helps a team understand its strengths and weaknesses and motivates them to improve their skills.

Feedback is the most important aspect of the evaluation and is given for each step of the FPS booklet.

Feedback enables students to focus their learning process and allows the coach to adapt the problem solving

instruction to meet the needs of the students. Attention must be given to the following four areas:

Praise: Positive acknowledgement of a team’s effort, creativity and major strengths reinforces

positive aspects of a team’s performance, establishes a good working relationship between the

evaluator and problem solvers, rewards the team for facing a problem and developing a solution

idea, and reminds the team that even if their score is not the highest, they still did some things right.

Clarification: Evaluator comments asking students to clarify ideas points out statements that may be confusing

or unclear, encourages teams to improve the clarity and elaboration of their work and promotes the development

of effective communication skills.

Criticism: Evaluator suggestions for areas needing improvement help teams build their skills, give teams

examples of ways to use their ideas, research, or the FPS process more effectively, and encourage teams to learn

from their work to become better problem solvers.

Amplification: Evaluator comments should help students expand their ideas, push their thinking even further,

and improve the quality of their problem solving.

TYPES OF SCALES

Criteria in FPS evaluation are grouped into four categories of scales:

Frequency scales: Points are awarded based on a count of responses that meet specific criteria.

Rating scales: Points are awarded based on the degree or extent to which a team meets a descriptor

Weighted scales: Bonus points are awarded for fluent or relevant responses found infrequently and are

indicative of high-quality thought.

Composite scales: Scores are awarded based on a total of points earned on individual elements.

The type of scale used for each criterion is identified following the criterion’s description.

TYPES OF CRITERIA

The FPS criteria measure student skills in the following three categories:

Content: These criteria measure the quality of the content. Content-oriented criteria evaluate an idea’s merit.

Structure: Structure-oriented criteria assess how effectively students fit their work into a prescribed format. This

measures a team’s mechanics in completing their booklet.

Process: These criteria judge how well students use the FPS model.

SUBJECTIVITY

The FPS process is subjective. Teams are given a Future Scene that is a subjective description of a particular

problem. Their task is to solve the central problem in the Future Scene by using the FPS process; therefore, teams

are asked to think subjectively and to think beyond traditional solutions. FPS booklets are not multiple-choice, true-

false, or fill-in-the-blank tests. They are not graded as having right or wrong answers; rather, they are evaluated

using the standards of the FPS program. The evaluation process is equally subjective. Evaluators are asked to

score FPS booklets using the standards in the FPS Manual, as well as any Evaluator’s Notes that accompany the Future

Scenes. The standards used to score FPS booklets are built on principles of the FPS structure and are subjective.

And, finally, we are humans, using human judgment, which makes us subjective beings.

What is the result? The evaluator will not look at a booklet the same way another evaluator will.

But that’s okay. The most important thing to remember is that as an evaluator, YOU ARE

CONSISTENT IN YOUR EVALUATIONS. In other words, all of the booklets that you evaluate

are scored using your consistent framework of judgment.

4

COMPARISON of FPS EVENTS ELEMENTARY - MIDDLE GRADE - HIGH SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS

JUNIOR DIVISION AND INDIVIDUAL FPS REQUIREMENTS There are differences in FPS competition and scoring for the different events and divisions. The majority

of the differences, however, is mechanical, rather than changes in the FPS process. Every team or

individual uses the same six-step FPS process. The following is a comparison:

ELEMENTARY SCORESHEETS HAVE NO DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN GENERIC OR SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN STEP 4

Topics are announced months before any competition is scheduled to occur so that students can research the topic. Research must be done to understand the topic and information

presented in the Future Scene. Each student will be given a copy of the Future Scene about

the topic to be used during the competition. A Future Scene is a hypothetical, “what if”, scenario based on current information. Student work must logically relate to the Future

Scene. Evaluators are given a copy of the Future Scene and supplemental evaluator notes. In cases where research can be found that contradicts the Future Scene, the team is still

required to problem solve within the boundaries of the given situation. After reading the

Future Scene, students must be able to identify the charge or directive given to the team. For the purpose of certification, the Social Media Future Scene on the next page will be

used in this FPS Evaluation Manual and FPS Evaluation Manual Supplement as a reference. For the purpose of presenting the material for certification, the Middle Grade

and High School chart will be the focus for this session.

The FPS Booklet for Certification will use different materials to complete the KAAC FPS Certification process.

Elementary

Governor’s Cup

Individual FPS All

Divisions

Middle Grade / High School

Governor’s Cup

Junior FPS

Division

Step 1 8 Challenges 8 Challenges 16 Challenges

Step 2 1 Underlying Problem

Step 3 8 Solutions 8 Solutions 16 Solutions

Step 4 5 Criteria(May be Generic) 5 Criteria 5 Criteria

Step 5 4 Solutions 5 Solutions 8 Solutions

Step 6 1 Action Plan

Total Time to Compete 90 Minutes 120 Minutes 120 Minutes

Differences in Scoring Booklets

Scoring Step 1 Fluency (1-8) Flexibility (1-8) Clarity (1-8) Originality (1 per)

Scoring Step 2 Condition Phrase (0—2 ) Stem (0 or 1) KVP (0—3 ) Purpose (0—3) FSP (0—3) Focus (1-6) Adequacy (1-6)

Scoring Step 3 Fluency (1-8) Elaboration (0-8) Flexibility (1-8) Originality (1 per)

Scoring Step 4 & 5

Correctly Written (0-5)

EL R (0-5) Grid Used

Correctly (0-5)

Correctly Written (0-5)

R (0-10) Grid Used Correctly (0-5)

Scoring Step 6 Relevance (1—5 ) Effectiveness (1—5 ) Impact (1—5 ) Humaneness (1—5 ) Development of AP (1—10 )

Scoring Overall Research Applied (1-6) Creative Strength. (1-6) Futuristic Thinking (1-6)

5

Social Media Future Scene—Evaluation Manual

Future Problem Solving Protection of National Treasures District 2007

Middle Grades Division Future Scene

Meet Susanna Menendez, age 12. Susanna is the first person to have her life recorded, or

lifelogged, in its entirety. Susanna is the first person to have her life recorded, or

lifelogged, in its entirety. Susanna was video recorded in the womb from the second

trimester until birth, whereupon she was outfitted with a Neuroflex interface to record

data from all senses— sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell—as well as recording

conscious thoughts.

The idea to record Susanna’s development and experiences came to her father, Victor, a professor of Developmental

Biology at Edinburgh Polytechnical Institute in Scotland, as he was researching early human cognitive development.

“My wife, Allana, and I had just learned that we were to have our first child, and I thought wouldn’t it be wonderful to

experience the thoughts and sensations of a child as she develops,” explained Dr. Menendez in an interview. “With

the Neuroflex interface, we had an unprecedented opportunity to advance the field of developmental neuroscience,”

he explained, “so, my wife and I decided to do it.”

Shortly after the birth of Susanna, Dr. and Mrs. Menendez were approached by the lifelogging website RealLife.com

and were offered an undisclosed payment to have the rights and access to Susanna’s data until she was a legal adult

of 18. RealLife founder and CEO, Hideki Uraku stated, “People have been lifelogging for decades, recording their

actions along with overlaid commentary, but no one ever had the ability to record and post actual thoughts and

sensory experiences—until Susanna.”

Now, in the year 2032, 12-year-old Susanna has every sight, sound, taste, feeling, and thought recorded and uploaded

to the website www.SusannaRealLife.com, in which viewers access her life 24/7. Subscribers can take a daily poll to

help determine some of Susanna’s activities—such as what to wear or what music to listen to, as well as offer

suggestions for other activities and decisions. When asked, Susanna claims, “I don’t mind it at all; it’s all I’ve ever

known. I enjoy that I have millions of friends who know me intimately and are always there with me.” When pressed

further, Susanna admits, “Yeah, there are times when it can be overwhelming.” New lifelogging additions include GPS

tracking that now correlates what Susanna is doing with where she is located as well as facial recognition software

that recognizes and tags those who Susanna encounters, making it possible to go back and search all of Susanna’s

experiences and memories of that particular person in the future. Other social media websites are also interested in

Susanna’s lifelogging experience, with links to Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook and others (click on the social media icons

in the top right corner of this page.)

Uraku defends his website by explaining the potential benefits of having one’s life recorded: “Imagine never losing

your car keys because all you have to do is watch the recording of where you last had them. In fact, we would rarely

forget anything. In addition, arguments could be easily resolved by just going back and seeing what the person

actually said, rather than rely upon faulty memories. How awesome would it be to be able to relive that first date with

your future spouse or re-experience the wonders of hearing your child’s first words again?” Uraku plans to expand his

company and website, allowing others for a small fee to lifelog their lives and those of their children. “The field is

growing each year, and the trend is unstoppable,” claims Uraku.

Not all agree with Uraku about the benefits of full lifelogging to the Internet, however. The subject is the key focus of

the 2032 World Summit on the Information Society, held in London. Some disagree with the ability of parents to sell

the thoughts of their children, claiming that the child has no say in his or her own right to privacy. Others believe that

the time, effort, and expense that goes into lifelogging to be disproportionate to the minimal benefits it generates.

Lifelogging is a window to our past—for better or worse—and it seems to be here to stay. As such, organizers of the

World Summit have asked the Future Problem Solving Program to prepare a presentation for the meetings in which

the various problems of total lifelogging are identified along with potential solutions to this social media phenomenon.

6

Evaluating the Six Step Process

STEP 1—IDENTIFY CHALLENGES OBJECTIVE: Identify 16 challenges (8 for elementary) within the boundaries of the Future Scene and written

in statement form. A challenge is an issue, concern, or problem that needs attention or consideration (points of

importance). A challenge is a logical cause or effect of the situations in the Future Scene that would be likely to occur.

A challenge does NOT have to be directed to the Future Scene charge, but must relate to the Future Scene. Terms of

probability, such as may, might, or could, etc., MUST be used to connect the ideas to the future. Using definitive

statements, or stating a challenge as absolute by using terms such as will, deny an important element of the FPS

process which is to project about the future. Challenges consistently using definitive wording (“will” instead of

may, might, or could) can only receive credit for a maximum of three (3) challenges. Extremes, such as

widespread death, economic ruin, or the end of the world as we know it, should be avoided. If and ONLY if no work

has been attempted on this section a score of zero (0) can be awarded.

Fluency .…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Flexibility .…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Clarity .…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Originality ..…………………………………………………………………….…………………………… .1 x ___ = ___

NO WORK ATTEMPTED………………………………………………………………………………………. 0

Each challenge statement is read and marked as Y – Yes, P – Perhaps, W – Why, S – Solution, or D – Duplicate in the

appropriate column on the scoresheet. Feedback on the scoresheet must be given to any Challenge NOT

scored as a Yes.

Cause-effect reasoning as an element of clarity in challenges

Cause and effect is the relationship between two things when one thing makes something else happen. By its very

nature, a challenge embodies cause-effect reasoning – looking at causes whose effects can be seen in the Future Scene, or looking at the Future Scene details as causes and determining what effects may occur. There may be

multiple causes for a single effect, and multiple effects from a single cause.

There are many signal words/phrases that indicate cause-effect relationships. The evaluator will probably see all of

these in written challenges at one time or another! Accordingly Because Due to For this reason Since Therefore

As a result of Consequently If…then Nevertheless So that Thus Understanding the causes and effects of situations is essential in learning the basic ways the world works. Part of the

clarity score is evaluating whether the cause-effect reasoning used in the challenges is logical.

A “reciprocal” cause-effect relationship is a chain. A cause leads to an effect, which then goes on to cause another effect, and so on. Most challenges with high clarity have at least

two chains. Challenges with many chains may become confusing, leading to lower clarity.

A cause-effect relationship that takes a “big leap” is probably missing parts of the chain, and

is also lower in Clarity. (Example: Because people are under stress, they may all kill each other.)

FLUENCY (1-8) The numerical score is based upon the number of challenges identified as a YES. A higher score is earned if most of the 16 (8 in the elementary division) challenges identified show a clear understanding of the Future

Scene. A low score is given if students misunderstand the Future Scene or identify challenges not related to the

specific Future Scene used during the competition. Each challenge is individually read and classified in one of the following categories:

YES – Challenge has a strong possibility of existing or occurring if the Future Scene were to occur. The cause/effect relationship is a logical cause of the Future Scene OR a logical result of the actions within the Future Scene.

The cause/effect relationship should be clearly written; however, a Yes may still be awarded if the relationship is

implied. An acceptable challenge may be a concern stated in the Future Scene provided that the team gives

7

enough details to the evaluator to show a cause or effect relationship to the Future Scene. “Yes” responses will earn credit toward Fluency score. Challenges that merely restate a problem stated in the Future

Scene are not awarded a Yes, unless the stated challenge further extends the cause/effect relationship.

The level of the sophistication of the writing or depth of the idea does NOT determine the Fluency score. As long as the challenge identifies what the concern is, why it is a concern and how it relates to the

Future Scene, it must be awarded a YES in Fluency. Remember, as long as the challenge answers these three questions, it should be scored as YES, even though you, as the evaluator, may have other ideas of its

value. Examples from the Social Media Future Scene that would be scored as a Yes:

Since RealLife is a company that sells a lifelog that records every facet of a person’s life from a time while still in utero to age 18, the company has subscribers that can determine some of the daily activities of Susanna’s life. This may result in the participants of the program, such as Susanna, to not be able to adequately develop the simple task of decision-making which is a critical element of any child’s development. Lacking this key component in early childhood development may lead to unnecessary stress or frustration of the RealLife participants. (Cause: subscribers can determine Susanna’s daily activities;

Effect: unnecessary stress or frustration) Participants like Susanna in the RealLife lifelog program may feel resentment toward their parents for

committing them to a potentially life-altering agreement. This could lead to ill feelings toward their parents by these children, which could result in various dysfunctional instances to occur within the family dynamics. (Cause: resentment; Effect: dysfunctional family dynamics)

(EL Division) The kids like Susanna may resent their parents for taking away their choices. This could lead to fights between the kids and their parents which may cause a lack of respect to each other. (Cause: resentment; Effect: lack of respect) With examples such as these, credit will be awarded toward the Fluency score.

PERHAPS – (1) Challenge is ambiguous; true intent cannot be determined, or (2) Challenge is worded poorly and

would have been scored Yes had it been stated more clearly. Examples from the Social Media Future Scene: The RealLife program may not be able to handle the amount of parents that want to participate. (This

has some possibility of occurring, but not enough detail is given to see the clear intent.)

The participants of the RealLife program might not know they have been signed up to participate by their parents. (Not a clear cause and effect relationship. With more information

about what may have caused this and the effects that may result from the challenge, it would be a Yes.)

With examples such as these, NO credit may be awarded toward the Fluency score.

WHY – (1) Challenge does not appear to have a clear connection to the Future Scene or (2) Statements do not

identify a challenge. Examples from the Social Media Future Scene: The community may not like the idea of having this type of Social Media. (Does not explain “WHY”)

Dr. and Mrs. Menendez were offered an undisclosed payment to have the rights to access Susanna’s data until she was a legal adult of 18. (A non-extended statement from the Future Scene. Does not explain

“WHY” and last more detail. Does not identify a clear cause/effect relationship.) With examples such as these, NO credit may be awarded toward the Fluency score.

SOLUTION – Any response that suggests how to solve challenges of the Future Scene. Identifying issues that could result from a Solution from the Future Scene is not the same as identifying

actual challenges in the Future Scene. Citing challenges resulting from a solution generated from the Future Scene are examples of solutions. Showing how to implement a solution and elaborating the

solution is only relevant to Step 3. A response that suggests how to solve a challenge of the Future Scene should NOT be accepted as a challenge. An example from the Social Media Future Scene:

Since the RealLife program does not allow the young participants to have a say in their own rights to privacy, a law will be implemented to ensure the rights of these young people, which may reduce RealLife’s ability to remain profitable. (A solution has been generated to offset one of the issues identified in the FS.)

Child lifeloggers will be able to sue their parents for not letting them make their own choices. This may

result in a backlog of civil cases in the court system which may result in important criminal cases not being

heard. (A solution was created to generate a challenge.) With examples such as these, NO credit may be awarded toward the Fluency score.

8

DUPLICATE – Any challenge that is too contextually similar to another challenge – previously scored as Yes – cannot receive additional credit. Evaluators should not confuse duplicate ideas with

duplicate categories—it is acceptable for students to list several different ideas in the same category. Three examples of duplicated challenges from the Social Media Future Scene:

1. Since the focus of the RealLife program was to do a lifelog of the participants, the personal rights of citizens associated with the participants may be inadvertently compromised which may harm the social relationships among the acquaintances of the participants.

2. Susanna has admitted that the lack of privacy can be “overwhelming” at times. It has also been determined that facial recognition software is used to “tag” those who Susanna encounters. While Susanna’s parents agreed to participate in the RealLife program, those Susanna encounter did not. Because it is possible to go back and search Susanna’s experiences and memories, the personal rights to privacy of the people Susanna comes in contact with may be violated which could affect the ability of Susanna to develop lifelong social relationships. (From these examples, this challenge is the most specific and clear of the three. Therefore, it would receive credit and the others would be a duplicate to #2)

3. The personal rights of the citizens coming in contact with a participant of the RealLife program might be violated which could result in the lack of friendships for the RealLife participants.

NOTE: Any of these challenges could have been scored as a YES toward Fluency. However, they ARE duplicates. The evaluator reads each and selects the one that is better written, or that would receive more credit for Flexibility. The other challenges are marked with a “D” and are labeled on the scoresheet with the challenge number (#) being

duplicated.

Evaluators determine the variety of points of view taken within the Yes responses. Does the team look at what caused the challenges in the Future Scene as well as the effects of the Future Scene? After evaluating each of the

team’s challenges, count the number of Yes challenges and indicate the number in the Yes column and circle the Fluency score based on the scale/corresponding number provided on the scoresheet. Write the Fluency score in the

Step 1 Scores box. □ SCORE Fluency for each challenge in Step 1 by awarding:

Credit for each challenge that receives a YES with a check mark in the first column. (For Middle Grades and High School see the scoresheet for scores to be awarded based on the range for the Yes challenges for the Fluency score.)

No credit if a challenge does not have a connection to the Future Scene, is a Perhaps, Why, Solution

or Duplicate, or is ambiguous.

FLEXIBILITY (1-8) The numerical score is based upon the number

of categories used in the challenges scored as Yes. ONLY YES challenges may be considered and scored for Flexibility. A more varied approach to the Future Scene allows a more complete picture of

the whole situation. Students should demonstrate Flexibility in their thinking and explore challenges from different perspectives or categories.

Evaluators take each of the following areas into consideration in scoring

booklets for Flexibility. DO NOT ASSIGN CATEGORIES TO CHALLENGES THAT DO NOT

RECEIVE A YES!!! Categorize the Yes challenge responses on the scoresheet. Use the

category list provided on the left side of the scoresheet for Step 1 to check the different categories used by the team. Look at the YES examples on page 7 and identify the categories associated with each of the YES

challenges. (Bulleted Challenge 1: categories 14, 16, 2; Bulleted Challenge 2: categories 16, 14; Bulleted Challenge 3: categories 16, 14)

Evaluators are encouraged to assign all categories that apply to a challenge. The evaluator may award more than one category for each challenge that receives a Yes. Flexibility points are awarded based on the number of

different categories identified.

Determine the variety of points of view taken within the Yes responses. Does the team look at what caused the challenges in the Future Scene as well as the effects of the Future Scene in the situation presented?

Category List

1 Arts & Aesthetics 10 Government & Politics

2 Basic Needs 11 Law & Justice

3 Business & Commerce 12 Miscellaneous

4 Communication 13 Physical Health

5 Defense 14 Psychological Health

6 Economics 15 Recreation

7 Education 16 Social Relationships

8 Environment 17 Technology

9 Ethics & Religion 18 Transportation

9

Count the number of different categories used and determine the numerical score according to the scale/corresponding number on the scoresheet. Each category number may be counted toward Flexibility only

once.

□ SCORE Flexibility for each challenge in Step 1 by awarding: Credit for each challenge that receives a Yes in Fluency with a category number(s) from the left side of the

scoresheet. The same number may be repeated, but will be counted toward Flexibility only once. (For Middle Grades and High School see the scoresheet for scores to be awarded based on the number of Categories assigned and the corresponding number on the scoresheet for the Flexibility score.)

NO credit if a challenge DID NOT score a Yes in Fluency.

CLARITY (1-8) Clarity evaluates the description of the challenges identified. A challenge with a clear and thorough description of the concern demonstrates good clarity; a clearly written challenge shows effective communication skills.

Challenges lacking clarity are more often challenges scored as Perhaps or Why. Teams who consistently state what the challenge is, why it is a challenge, and how it logically relates to the Future Scene should receive a high score for

Clarity. Teams should be able to show the logical causes/consequences of the challenges. Use the descriptors on the

scoresheet to determine the numerical score. □ SCORE Clarity for each challenge in Step 1 by awarding:

A higher score for challenges that have a logical cause/effect relationship that are well written.

A lower score if it is hard to determine what the challenge is, cause/effect reasoning is missing or incorrect,

or the booklet is not tied to the Future Scene. (For Middle Grades and High School see the scoresheet for scores to be awarded based on the range for the Clarity score.)

ORIGINALITY (1 point for each) – This scale rewards the identification of a rare, high-quality challenge that received a Yes in Fluency. A response found infrequently among responses at that

age/grade level and considered to be of high quality (insightful, indicative of breakthrough thinking) is scored Original. Mark ORIGINAL challenges with a check mark in the “O” column for each Original

challenge. Remember, some challenges will be very creative/insightful, but lack a connection to the Future Scene. These challenges may NOT be scored as a Yes for Fluency, nor will the challenges be eligible for an

Originality score. Enter the total number of originals on the scoresheet and multiply by 1.

DO NOT AWARD ORIGINALITY SCORE TO A CHALLENGE THAT DO NOT RECEIVE A YES!!! □ SCORE Originality for a YES challenge in Step 1 by awarding:

1 point for EACH challenge that shows unique creativity or insight into the Future Scene.

0 points if the challenge is not a YES and does NOT go beyond ordinary thinking in relation to the Future

Scene.

Reminder: Only YES challenges may be considered for Flexibility and Originality.

Reminder: Challenges consistently using definitive wording (“will” instead of may, might, or could) can only receive credit for a maximum of three (3) challenges.

Reminder: Extremes such as “widespread death” or “economic ruin” or “the end of the world as we know it” should be avoided. An example of an extreme consequence would state that “people might start

fighting and everyone would kill each other.”

NOTE: The most important details to remember when scoring Step 1, and other subsequent steps, are to have

an understanding of each step’s guidelines. For Step 1, the team must problem solve within the boundaries of the

Future Scene, and each challenge scored as a YES must answer three questions: What, Why and How. If the

team has written a YES challenge, then you MUST assign a Category to the challenge. You may also consider

each YES challenges for an Originality point. If a challenge is NOT considered a YES, then you MUST identify it

as a Perhaps, Why, Duplicate or Solution and GIVE FEEDBACK TO EXPLAN “WHY” the challenge was not a Yes.

10

STEP 2 – SELECT an UNDERLYING PROBLEM (UP) OBJECTIVE: To identify and state an important part of the Future Scene to solve stated as one question.

After the team has discussed and written challenges in Step 1, Step 2 offers the most important question for the team

to consider; “How do we impact the issues that have been identified in the Future Scene?” It is the basis for

the work to be completed in the remainder of the booklet. The UP may be composed of one challenge, one category

of concern, or a compilation of several related challenges the team identified in Step 1 and wishes to solve in Step 3.

It means a larger challenge, the entire Future Scene, is broken down into a smaller, more manageable challenge.

Multiple ideas should NOT be included in the UP. The UP is never as large as the Future Scene, but must be a

challenge derived from Step 1 and not an additional challenge. The UP that encompasses the entire Future

Scene is a Restatement and is inconsistent with the FPS process and is therefore considered a critical error. Other

critical errors (described later) written in the Underlying Problem will cause the team to have difficulty scoring high

marks in the remainder of the booklet.

Condition Phrase ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….0 1 2

Stem …..………………..………………….…………………………………………..…………………….……….………………0 1

Key Verb Phrase (KVP) ………………………………………………………………………………..……………….…0 1 2 3

Purpose ………………………………..…………………….………………………………….………………………….….0 1 2 3

Future Scene Parameters (FSP) ..……………….……………………………………..…………………………..…0 1 2 3

Focus .………………………………………………………………….……………………..…………………………1 2 3 4 5 6

Adequacy .…..………………………………………………..………………………..……………………………..1 2 3 4 5 6

NO WORK ATTEMPTED …..…………………………………………….……………………………………...0

The Underlying Problem is the most important step in the problem solving process. The

quality of all subsequent steps relies on an important and well-stated action to be taken and

the goal to be accomplished. The Underlying Problem is never a restatement of the entire

Future Scene, nor is it a repeat of the Future Scene charge. The UP should be narrow

enough to focus attention on a defined area of concern and broad enough to generate many different solution ideas.

Underlying Problem

Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that

records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7,

how might we increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process so

that their personal rights might be better upheld?

STRUCTURE: Structure is an assessment of the composition or makeup of the Underlying

Problem (UP). A well-structured UP is one that correctly includes all five required structural elements, — Condition Phrase (CP), Stem (S), Key Verb Phrase (KVP), Purpose (P), and

Future Scene Parameters (FSP). At this point, evaluators do not judge the effectiveness or the

value of the UP. Instead, the Structure score simply determines if all the parts are present and are correctly written according to the criteria within the rubric.

CONDITION PHRASE (0, 1 or 2 points) —A lead-in phrase, fact or logical

assumption, or brief sentence that describes the situation in the Future Scene that is the

basis for or cause of the challenge the team chooses as the focus of its UP. The CP refers to a challenge but is not itself a challenge. It can refer to one challenge or a group of challenges that

relates to the KVP. The CP guides (forces) the team to make a connection to the Future Scene and the Step 1 challenge(s) used as the focus of its UP. (e.g. “Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7,...”). The CP explicitly or implicitly indicates what the challenge is from Step 1

that the team selects to solve in Step 3. The connection to Susanna, RealLife, and her daily activities are

UP

11

mentioned in the Future Scene which is an area of concern from the Step 1 challenge(s) and is selected as the focus of the UP. At this time, the Condition Phrase is judged for structure, accuracy of the information

included and relationship to the KVP. A qualitative score that includes the wording of the Condition Phrase is

judged later in the Step 2 scoring process. □ SCORE CP from the UP in Step 2 by awarding:

2 points: If the CP relates to the KVP and uses accurate information from the Future Scene, or is

phrased to be a logical assumption related to the Future Scene. 1 Point: If the CP does not use accurate information from the Future Scene, is NOT a logical

assumption, or is not related to the KVP.

0 Points: If the CP is missing.

1. Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and

makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, Award 2 points for

the connection to the Future Scene with information that is true.

2. Since adults are the participants in 2032 in the RealLife early human cognitive development program that

infringes upon privacy rights of those in contact with the participant, Award 1 point because this

information is NOT related (adult participants—mistaken stakeholders) to the Future Scene.

STEM (0 or 1 point) — The UP includes one of the two following stems: “How might we” or “In

what ways might we”

□ SCORE Stem from the UP in Step 2 by awarding:

1 point: If the Stem is present.

0 points: If the Stem is missing or inappropriate. (e.g., How can we do…? Or How might the

Future Problem Solvers …?)

KEY VERB PHRASE – KVP (0 1, 2 or 3 points) – A phrase indicating what the team will do to solve the challenge (e.g., “. . . In what ways might we “increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process…?”). The Key Verb Phrase (KVP) is one key action verb with one

object or one modifier in a phrase that mandates what must occur in Step 3. Solution ideas must be specific to the KVP to earn credit as being relevant and MUST do so without

contradicting the intended outcome or goal identified in the Purpose. When a team writes a KVP with multiple verbs, or multiple modifiers or objects to the verb, it will be

more difficult to generate relevant solutions in Step 3. At this time, the KVP is judged

for structure. A qualitative score that includes the wording of the Key Verb Phrase is judged later in the Step 2 scoring process.

□ SCORE KVP from the UP in Step 2 by awarding:

3 points: If the KVP is present and contains a single action verb or verb phrase

2 points: If the KVP is present but has two objects or two modifiers

1 point: If the KVP is present but has two or more verb/s or verb phrases

0 points: If the KVP is missing

The following examples MUST be written using either Stem, In what ways might we, or How might we…?

1. … increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process … Award 3 points for a single KVP

2. … increase child lifeloggers’ ability and understanding to make personal decisions … Award 2 points for

including 2 different things to be enacted resulting in multiple objects.

3. … improve the parental and participant relationships… Award 2 points for multiple modifiers describing

the noun (example here is “relationships”).

4. … protect the personal rights and implement laws for the RealLife participants … Award 1 point for having

2 verbs (protect & help retain) which causes two distinct actions to take place in the KVP.

12

PURPOSE (0, 1, 2, or 3 points) — The Purpose specifies an optimal direction, goal to pursue, or reason to solve the challenge. (e.g., “their personal rights might be better upheld?”) It is the reason for the action to be taken or the goal the team hopes to accomplish. The Purpose is

singular and should give further information about what will be accomplished if the UP is solved. The Purpose provides direction for the KVP and must show a clear relationship to the KVP.

Solution ideas must satisfy the Purpose to be considered Relevant. If more than one Purpose is stated, the evaluator MUST consider all aspects of the Purpose when

scoring for Relevant solution ideas in Step 3. When a team writes a Purpose with multiple verbs or infinitive

phrases or multiple modifiers or objects to that verb, it will be more difficult to generate relevant solutions in Step 3. At this time, the Purpose is judged for structure. A qualitative score that includes the wording of the

Purpose is judged later in the Step 2 scoring process. □ SCORE Purpose from the UP in Step 2 by awarding:

3 points: If the P is present and has a single focus with a logical relationship to the KVP.

2 points: If the P is present but has multiple objects or modifiers,

1 point: If the P is present with more than one verb or infinitive phrase, or present but no clear

relationship to the KVP, or it repeats the KVP and/or CP. 0 points: If the P is missing

The following examples are written with two commonly used lead-in phrases to help identify the beginning of the

Purpose. Lead-ins following the KVP include, but are NOT limited to the phrases “so that” or “in order to.”

1. …so that their personal rights might be better upheld? Award 3 points for a single Purpose with action to be taken

2. …in order to allow the present and future participants of the program have their rights protected? Award 2 points for multiple modifiers describing the type of participants in the Purpose

3. …so that the data will be available to study the participants outcomes and the RealLife company can

continue to prosper financially? Award 2 points for Multiple objects (the outcomes and reliability) in the

Purpose

4. …so that the participants’ rights are protected while the parents continue to be in control of the child’s life?

Award 1 point for multiple verbs in the Purpose (using “while” causes two simultaneous actions/situations

to occur and will be viewed as multiple verbs resulting in one (1) point)

5. …so the program directors can profit and increase participation in the RealLife program? Award 1 point

for multiple verbs (benefit and profit) in the Purpose. 6. …in order to have the world becomes a safer place to live? Award 1 point for lack of connection to the KVP

Example #7 will be based on the following UP: Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program, how might

we increase the individual’s decision-making process so that the participants can continue to participate in the cognitive development program?

7. … so that the individuals can continue to participate in the cognitive development program? Award 1 point for

repeating the CP in the Purpose. This is a Circular UP. Example #8 will be based on the following UP:

Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program, how might we increase the individual’s decision-making process so that the participants can use their decision

making skills for themselves?

8. … so that the participants can use their decision-making skills for themselves? Award 1 point for repeating the KVP in the Purpose. This is also a Circular UP.

Missing PURPOSE — Leaving out the Purpose is a critical error in the FPS process. Leaving out the

Purpose will negatively affect scores in Steps 2, 3, 4, and 6. In Step 2 on the structure line of the scoresheet, a team will receive zero (0) points for the Purpose if it is missing.

Reminder: If the UP has no Purpose, evaluators: Assign a Structure score of zero (0) for Purpose

See additional comments on Page 16 for Qualitative Scores when the Purpose has been omitted.

13

In competitive situations such as District, Regional, State or International Conference, a team who’s UP has no written Purpose will have a very difficult time advancing to further rounds of evaluation. FUTURE SCENE PARAMETERS (0, 1, 2, or 3 points) — The Future Scene Parameters (FSP) place the

UP within the confines of the Future Scene. These parameters include time, place and topic. (e.g., Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 (Date) in the RealLife lifelogging (Topic) program that records and makes public through the Internet (Place) all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process so that their personal rights might be better upheld?) By including the parameters in the UP, the team ensures the challenge is one that is a sub-area or

subtopic of the Future Scene. The specific topic of this Future Scene is “lifelogging.” Social Media could have also been used as the topic as long as the team made a direct tie to the

Future Scene. The location parameter may not always be a specific geographic location (i.e, the Internet). Phrasing that indicates a time beyond that mentioned in the FS is also an

acceptable means of identifying time parameters in place of a specific year (i.e., the Era of

lifelogging). However, the phrase “now and beyond” is not indicative of the time parameter and would not receive credit. In the example above, each parameter was referenced in the UP

for this specific Future Scene. For each parameter identified, one (1) point will be awarded. □ SCORE FSP from the UP in Step 2 by awarding:

o 3 points: If all 3 parameters of topic, place and time are present. o 2 points: If two of the parameters are present.

o 1 point: If one of the parameters is present.

o 0 points: If none of the parameters is present.

NOTE: Even if the team fails to include the Future Scene Parameters in the UP, solution ideas still need to fall within

these parameters to be scored relevant in Step 3. Otherwise, the team has broadened the scope of UP in relationship

to the Future Scene.

QUALITATIVE SCORES: The next two elements, Focus and Adequacy, measure the quality of the

Underlying Problem (UP) written by the team. The team should select a UP that identifies a

manageable area of concern which has significant importance to the Future Scene and the goal the team hopes to accomplish. Word choice is vital when considering the written UP. Phrases like

“improve the quality of life” or “provide a successful life” have different meanings to each evaluator. A brief description of common mistakes the teams make that adversely impacts the Focus and Adequacy

scores are listed below.

THE UP DOES NOT IDENTIFY A CHALLENGE RELATED to the Future Scene (an unrelated UP, such as, “How might we reduce terrorism through the use of social media..?”; or a UP that does not identify any

challenge, such as, “How might we make RealLife a training model for Social Media?”); or THE UP RESTATES the entire Future Scene (“How might we solve the challenges related to the Social

Media?”) or

THE UP BROADENS the Future Scene (“How might we solve the challenges related to Social Media?”) (“How might we expand the participants in the RealLife program to include the elderly in the world?”) or

THE UP USES AN ABSOLUTE VERB (“How might we prevent the abuse of human rights of those using Social Media?”) or

A CIRCULAR UP results when the PURPOSE duplicates the CP and/or KVP identified in the UP SEE PAGE 12 (See examples 7 and 8 above)

THE UP HAS NO PURPOSE or stated goal the team hopes to accomplish SEE PAGE 12

Qualitative Scores for the Underlying Problem assess the area of concern the team has chosen as the primary issue,

that if resolved, would have a huge impact on the conditions that are occurring in the Future Scene. Qualitative scores are given for the Focus and Adequacy of the UP. Focused Underlying Problems will have a manageable area of

concern, while Adequacy looks at the merit of the problem. FOCUS (1—6) The challenge identified in the UP should be a smaller part of the entire Future Scene. It

should narrow the Future Scene without trivializing any part of it. A focused UP is one that identifies a manageable area of concern in which solution ideas can be developed. Focus measures the scope of an

14

Underlying Problem. Full credit is awarded to an UP that identifies a significant area of concern. A lower score is given if the challenge identified is too broad or too narrow.

□ SCORE Focus from the UP in Step 2 by awarding:

6 points: If the UP is excellent and the KVP is tied to Purpose; addresses Future Scene charge.

4-5 points: If the KVP and goal are evident and manageable; addresses the Future Scene charge.

2-3 points: If the UP is too broad or too narrow or not clearly worded.

1 point: If the UP: Restates, is Circular (Purpose repeats KVP &/or CP), or Broadens the Future

Scene, uses an Absolute KVP, is Without a Purpose, uses a Multiple P, uses a Purpose NOT connected to KVP, or ignores the Future Scene.

Reminder: The UP MUST be derived from the challenge(s) generated by the team in Step 1. If this is not the case, score the UP a one (1) or two (2) points, based on the quality of its Focus.

Reminder: If a multiple UP exists in a booklet, evaluators refer only to the first verb when scoring Focus and

Adequacy in Step 2 based on the quality. Solution ideas, however, MUST be relevant to everything mentioned in the UP to be scored relevant in Step 3.

Reminder: If a multiple Underlying Problem has an Imposed Purpose by the evaluator, assign a Focus score of one (1).

Reminder: If a UP is a Restatement, the Focus score must be a one (1). Reminder: If the PURPOSE is repeated in the CP or KVP, it is considered Circular and

the UP must receive a one (1) in Focus.

Reminder: The use of an Absolute Verb in the KVP such as stop, prevent, eliminate, etc. MUST be awarded a 1 in Focus. An Absolute Verb is one that does not have any

flexibility or the degree of measurement is absolute. Reminder: If a UP is written Without a Purpose, the Focus score must be a one (1).

NOTE for Step 3: In circumstances where the UP is a Restatement; is Circular; or uses an Absolute

Verb; or was written by the team Without a Purpose, the team may receive credit for a maximum of 25% of the possible 16 High School or Middle Grades or 8 ELementary solutions (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions). Please remember that scores must be assigned as whole numbers.

ADEQUACY (1—6) Adequacy assesses the importance of the problem area the team chooses as its UP.

While focus measures the scope of an Underlying Problem, adequacy measures its significance or merit. Higher adequacy scores are awarded to teams that identify an important issue within the Future

Scene. Adequacy measures two aspects of the UP: 1. Identification of a challenge or area of concern within the Future Scene.

2. The importance of the UP in relation to the major challenges of the entire Future Scene.

□ SCORE Adequacy from the UP in Step 2 by awarding: 6 points: If the team identifies an important/major issue within the Future Scene with a UP that

addresses the Future Scene Charge. 4-5 points: If the team identifies an appropriate issue within Future Scene and the UP addressed

the Future Scene Charge. 2-3 points: If the team selects a minor issue within the Future Scene.

1 point: If the UP Restates, is Circular (Purpose repeats KVP &/or CP), or Broadens the Future

Scene, uses an Absolute KVP, is Without a Purpose, uses a trivial or unrelated issue to the Future Scene, or is without a CP.

Reminder: If a multiple UP has an Imposed Purpose by the evaluator, assign an Adequacy score of one (1). Reminder: If a UP is a RESTATEMENT, the Adequacy score must be a one (1).

Reminder: If the UP is CIRCULAR, the Adequacy score must be a one (1).

Reminder: The use of an Absolute Verb in the KVP such as stop, prevent, eliminate, etc. MUST be awarded a one (1) in Adequacy.

Reminder: If a UP is has No Purpose, the Adequacy score must be a one (1). Reminder: A low score in Adequacy will also result in a lower score on Impact in Step 6.

NOTE for Step 3: In circumstances where the UP is a Restatement; is Circular; or uses an Absolute Verb; or

was written by the team Without a Purpose, the team may receive credit for a maximum of 25% of the total (16 High School or Middle Grades or 8 Elementary) possible solutions (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions). Please remember that scores must be assigned as whole numbers.

15

The following examples include the UP constructed from the Future Scene on page five. Two additional UPs do not

have a Purpose and will be scored as critical errors.

Example of UP that is structurally correct (Structure scores are above first bold line in the box below)

Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process so that their personal rights might be better upheld?

Structure: 12 All elements of the UP are included for full credit. Focus: 6 Adequacy: 6 An important issue to solve Comment: Empowering the participants to have the ability to make their own decisions and allow more personal rights to be upheld is an important issue from the Future Scene.

Example of UP without a Purpose in which the Condition Phrase and the Key Verb Phrase have a logical connection and the Purpose is written by the evaluator with

“brackets [] to denote the error. (Qualitative score for Focus is below the first bold line in the box below)

Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we increase the individual’s decision-making process? Imposed Purpose by evaluator: [“so that the participants feel that their human rights are not violated?”]

Structure: Total 9 *Mandated 0 score for Purpose Focus: 1 Adequacy: 1 Mandated Qualitative Scores

with Imposed Purpose Comment: The UP is less focused without a Purpose. The goal of the team is missing. It is important for the participants of the program to be able to have decision-making abilities and this does have a logical connection to having one’s human rights infringed upon. BRACKETS [ ] around the evaluator’s Imposed Purpose are inserted so it is easily identified when scoring the Solutions in Step 3 and the Action Plan in Step 6. Example of UP without a Purpose in which the Condition Phrase and the Key Verb

Phrase do NOT have a logical connection. (Qualitative score for Adequacy is above the second bold line in the box below)

Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we increase the nutritional supplements given to theses participants?

Structure: Total 9 *Mandated 0 score for Purpose Focus: 1 Adequacy: 1 Mandated Qualitative Scores

Comment: When a UP’s CP and KVP have no logical relationship such that a Purpose cannot be imposed to give a goal to be accomplished from the charge given in the Future Scene, the team receives 1s for both focus and adequacy.

With Logical Purpose Imposed STEP 2 SCORES Circle the appropriate score

CONDITION PHRASE 0 1 2

STEM 0 1

KVP 0 1 2 3

PURPOSE 0 1 2 3

FSP 0 1 2 3

FOCUS 1 2 3 4 5 6

ADEQUACY 1 2 3 4 5 6

NO WORK ATTEMPTED=0 0

STEP 2 TOTAL 24

With Logical Purpose Imposed STEP 2 SCORES Circle the appropriate score

CONDITION PHRASE 0 1 2

STEM 0 1

KVP 0 1 2 3

PURPOSE 0 1 2 3

FSP 0 1 2 3

FOCUS 1 2 3 4 5 6

ADEQUACY 1 2 3 4 5 6

NO WORK ATTEMPTED=0 0

STEP 2 TOTAL 11

STEP 2 SCORES Circle the appropriate score

CONDITION PHRASE 0 1 2

STEM 0 1

KVP 0 1 2 3

PURPOSE 0 1 2 3

FSP 0 1 2 3

FOCUS 1 2 3 4 5 6

ADEQUACY 1 2 3 4 5 6

NO WORK ATTEMPTED=0 0

STEP 2 TOTAL 11

16

NOTES: Additional Scoring Information when the Purpose is omitted and one is imposed by the evaluator.

o Assessing Step 3 score with an Imposed Purpose: Solution ideas in Step 3 are scored for Relevance very strictly against the KVP, the Imposed Purpose, and the Future Scene Parameters. The restrictions in Step

3 are severe and limits the number of solutions an evaluator may allow for credit toward the Relevance score which is limited to up to 25% of the 16 total possible solution ideas in HS & MG divisions and 8 possible solutions ideas in the EL division with a maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions.

o Assessing Step 4 score with No Purpose or Imposed Purpose: In Step 4, NO criterion may receive credit for being SPECIFIC to the PURPOSE if an Imposed Purpose is written by the evaluator.

o Assessing Step 6 score with Imposed Purpose: The Relevance and Effectiveness scores will be one (1) in both areas. The Impact score in Step 6 will be negatively affected as mandated with the lower score in

Adequacy.

Critical Errors within the UP that result in Focus and Adequacy scores of an Automatic 1 include a Restatement, Circular, Absolute Verb and No Purpose. The following are examples of critical errors that teams often make. After identifying the UP with one of these critical

errors, refer to this section for scoring reminders for Steps 3, 4 and 6 and Overall.

RESTATEMENT—A revision of the intent of the charge that does not narrow the topic, or a summary of the

entire Future Scene or Topic. This may or may not be verbatim. (EXAMPLES OF KEY VERB PHRASES) A. How might we decrease the negative impacts? (Repeat of the charge) B. How might we mitigate the challenges related to the Social Media?” (Restatement of Future Scene) C. How might we overcome the challenges created by the Social Media? (Restatement of topic

Other phrasing instead of “overcome” may include “develop remedies for” or “lessen.”)

Underlying Problems such as these are equivalent in context to a restatement of the Future Scene. Without narrowing

the Future Scene, a team not only misunderstands the FPS process, but also places itself in a competitively advantageous position because “relevancy” in solutions is more easily obtained for an unqualified UP. To balance this

inequity, booklets with Underlying Problems that are RESTATEMENTS, as described above; 1. receive a score of one (1) for Focus and a score of one (1) for Adequacy in Step 2,

2. must be limited to a maximum of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions)

possible solutions in Step 3. (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions) 3. must be scored lower and receive one (1) point for Effectiveness and Impact in Step 6. Evaluators

are instructed to consider this when scoring Creative Strength, because it is a critical error in the creative process.

CIRCULAR—A Circular UP occurs when the Purpose repeats either the CP and/or KVP. This repetition may be contextually the same (verbatim) or a paraphrasing carrying the same meaning. A. Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program, how might we

increase the individual’s decision-making process so that the participants can continue to participate in the cognitive development program? Repeat of the Condition Phrase in the Purpose

B. Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program, how might we increase the individual’s decision-making process so that the participants can use their decision making skills for themselves? Repeat of the Key Verb Phrase in the Purpose

Underlying Problems such as these ignore the cause and effect relationship necessary for effective problem solving. To help teams understand the importance of this critical error, booklets with Underlying Problems

that are CIRCULAR, as described above,

1. receive a score of one (1) for Focus and a score of one (1) for Adequacy in Step 2, 2. must be limited to a maximum of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions)

possible solutions in Step 3 (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions), and

17

3. must be scored lower and receive one (1) point for Effectiveness and Impact in Step 6. Evaluators are instructed to consider this when scoring Creative Strength, because it is a critical error in the creative

process.

ABSOLUTE VERB--Absolute verbs are restrictive mandates that lack flexibility and

limit the creation of varied solutions. Solutions will either solve perfectly or not at all. Absolute verbs offer NO flexibility in the action to be taken. The use of an

absolute verb in the Underlying Problem will cause difficulty for the team to develop

solutions and should expect to score the minimum points in Step 3. A. How might we stop the abuse of Social Media? B. How might we eliminate the RealLife program?

Stop, as well as eliminate, prevent, ensure, etc., are examples of a few of the absolute verbs. With these choices there is NO flexibility or degree for the team to generate solution ideas in Step 3.

Underlying Problems such as these ignore the cause and effect relationship necessary for effective problem

solving. To help teams understand the importance of this critical error, booklets with Underlying Problems that use ABSOLUTE VERBS, as described above,

1. receive a score of one (1) for Focus and a score of one (1) for Adequacy in Step 2, 2. must be limited to a maximum of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions)

possible solutions in Step 3 (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions), and

3. must be scored lower and receive one (1) point for Effectiveness and Impact in Step 6. Evaluators are instructed to consider this when scoring Creative Strength, because it is a critical error in the creative

process.

NOTE: As an evaluator, sometimes it is difficult to determine if the mandating verb is absolute. If the KVP “protect against the abuse of social media” is written in the Underlying Problem, the first objective is to identify if there is

flexibility or degrees to which the mandating verb can be accomplished. In this case, there is flexibility, but it may be more limiting in scope than another verb choice. Some examples of solutions the team identified to protect against

the abuse of social media might include: a regulatory agency, a self-censoring device, and many, many more. In this case “protect” would NOT be considered “absolute.” If the KVP was stated “eliminate the abuse against the

participants of Social Media,” the flexibility for this verb is not the same. “Eliminate” is absolute. This verb MUST be

viewed as either the solutions will or will not eliminate the abuse.

NO Purpose—Occurs when the teams fails to include a Purpose in the written UP. This error causes the team to

lack a stated goal to pursue or direction to take to solve the major challenge or area of concern identified from the specific competitive Future Scene. A. Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and

makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we increase the individual’s decision-making process? (A Purpose may be imposed by the evaluator because there is a logical connection between the CP and the KVP. See page 15.)

B. Since individuals like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we increase the nutritional supplements given to theses participants? (A Purpose CANNOT be imposed by the evaluator because there is NOT a logical connection between the CP and the KVP. See page 15.)

Underlying Problems such as these ignore the cause and effect relationship necessary for effective problem solving. To help teams understand the importance of this critical error, booklets with Underlying Problems

written without a Purpose, as described above contain a critical error and as such, result in

1. receive a score of one (1) for Focus and a score of one (1) for Adequacy in Step 2, 2. must be limited to a maximum of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions)

possible solutions in Step 3 (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions), and 3. must be scored lower and receive one (1) point for Effectiveness and Impact in Step 6. Evaluators

are instructed to consider this when scoring Creative Strength, because it is a critical error in the creative

process.

18

STEP 3 – PRODUCE SOLUTION IDEAS OBJECTIVE: To create 16 varied and unique solution ideas (8 for Elementary) written in statement form that respond to the Underlying Problem. Relevant Solutions MUST address the CP, KVP and the P of the UP. These solutions must also occur within the confines of the Future Scene Parameters.

Solution ideas are written as definite proposals. Solutions consistently using probability statements (may, might, or could instead of will) can only receive credit for a maximum of three (3) different solutions. Repeating the

CP, KVP or P verbatim does not make a solution Relevant to the UP or Elaborated. Elaborated solutions must explain three of the four who, what, why, and how questions. When and where may also be included but are not required

for Elaboration. Flexibility will be exhibited through thought and exploration of solution ideas from different perspectives or categories. Leaving out the Purpose is one of the critical errors and will result in a limitation of the

number of solutions the evaluator may score as Relevant (25% Rule.) Likewise, a Restatement, Circular UP and using

an Absolute Verb in the UP also results the 25% Rule penalty in Step 3. (See Scoresheet for more detail.) Only Relevant solutions may be considered and scored for Flexibility, Elaboration, and Originality.

Fluency ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Elaboration …………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Flexibility ……..………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Originality …………………………………………………………………………………………………1 x ____ = _____

NO WORK ATTEMPTED ………………………………………………………………………………….0

Each solution idea is read and marked as R – Relevant, P – Perhaps, H – How, W – Why, or D – Duplicate in the appropriate column on the scoresheet.

FLUENCY (1-8)— Fluency measures the number of solution ideas that are relevant to the UP. Each solution must be

designated as one of the following:

RELEVANT: The solution idea, if implemented, achieves the goal of the UP. More specifically, a

relevant solution idea addresses the issues of the Condition Phrase, answers the KVP, supports the Purpose, and occurs within the Future Scene Parameters. Solution ideas must not contradict any

part of the Future Scene. Parameters do not have to be stated in each solution, but the solutions

should not be about a different topic, place or time period other than the ones stated in the Future Scene. If either the KVP or Purpose has any form of phrasing used to indicate a multiple, all the stated

goals must be addressed in the solution idea to earn credit as Relevant. At this point, you are not evaluating whether a solution idea is good or bad, humane or inhumane, cost efficient or expensive. You are

determining whether the solution idea is relevant to the UP. A solution does not have to solve the UP completely

when used with a flexible verb, work perfectly, be tried and true, or be new to be considered Relevant. Relevant solution ideas MUST explain what the solution is and how it will solve the UP.

In association with the RealLife business, the Electronic Association for an Ethical Society will work with the owners of the lifelogging business and the participants and their families to establish electronic filters that will allow these young participants to be a part of the decision making process for things that get displayed to the Internet on a daily basis. Participants will set guidelines that are entered into a computer program that is specifically designed to monitor for unethical behavior. Through this monitoring, the participants can be active in allowing/not allowing various aspects of one’s life accessible to be displayed for all to view.

The Internet uploads will be considered to be live, but will have a 10-15 second delay that will allow participants like Susanna, through the use of a link to the cameras, to blacken out any offensive or embarrassing act that occurs. (Note: there is no reference to decision making or personal privacy, but you can clearly see the connection to both.)

(EL Division) Child lifeloggers will be able to sue their parents for not letting them make their own choices. This gives them power over their personal rights. These are examples of Relevant (R) solution ideas and earn credit toward Fluency score.

PERHAPS: The solution idea does not have a clear connection to the goals of the UP. No credit may be awarded toward the Fluency score if the:

(1) Solutions have some connection to the UP. (2) Solutions are worded poorly or ambiguously, and would have been scored

Relevant had they been stated more clearly.

19

The National Council of Pediatric Specialists will develop a series of decision making training modules focused in the child development principles that all child lifeloggers will complete as part of the lifelogging process. (Ambiguous nature of the solution does not provide a clear connection to the goals of the UP)

The WAE (World Association of Educators) will develop an online course about lifelogging. This course will be required for parents to complete prior to signing any agreement with a lifelogging website such as RealLife.com. The online course will teach parents about the impact lifelogging will have on their privacy, so that parents can be empowered in their decision making process. (Although there is some connection to the future scene, this solution does not indicate a clear connection to the UP’s stakeholders)

HOW or WHY: The solution idea is marked How or Why for one of two reasons:

1) The solution idea does not have a clear connection or clear tie to the goals of the UP. 2) The statement does not identify a solution idea.

The Social Media organizations will solicit help from Congress to petition for new laws to be

passed. (Does not explain “WHY” you would do this to help with the lifelogging situation. No

clear connection to this specific Future Scene.)

The lack of privacy of the lifeloggers requires a need to have an approved censorship device developed. (Does

not explain “HOW” this will solve the UP. It is a statement to the beginning of a very good solution idea.)

With examples such as these, NO credit may be awarded toward the Fluency score or a How or Why.

DUPLICATE: A solution idea too contextually similar to one or more solutions previously scored as Relevant is considered a Duplicate. Each solution identified as a Duplicate could have been scored as an R toward Fluency. However, Duplicates will receive credit for one (1) of the written solutions. The evaluator reads the duplicated solutions and selects the one that is better written, or that would receive more credit if Elaboration or Flexibility scores cause a higher score. The remaining solution(s) receive a “D” and the Solution number(s) (#) being duplicated.

1. In order to allow for the decision making process to be enacted by the lifelogger participants and allow the RealLife program to continue, the programmers for RealLife will create an electronic screener that will allow the participants to set benchmarks that have been preapproved by the owners of the program and the participants. Since the documents were signed by the parents of the participants, it will be important for the developers of the program to solicit this relationship to keep the program moving forward with this unique social endeavor.

2. In association with the RealLife business, the Electronic Association for an Ethical Society will work with the owners of the lifelogging business and the participants and their families to establish electronic filters that will allow these young participants to be a part of the decision making process for things that get displayed to the Internet on a daily basis. Participants will set guidelines that are entered into a computer program that is specifically designed to monitor for unethical behavior. Through this monitoring, the participants can be active in allowing/not allowing various aspects of one’s life accessible to be displayed for all to view. (From

these examples, this solution is the best of the three. Therefore, it would receive credit and the others would be a duplicate to #2)

3. (EL Division) The people that own the program will modify the rules to allow the participants to not have everything shown on the Internet that they do every day. One way to change the rules will be to allow people like Suzanna to say whether or not something is shown to the world.

Any of these solutions could have been scored as a Relevant toward Fluency. However, they ARE

duplicates. The evaluator reads each and selects the one that is better written, or that would receive

more credit for Flexibility. The other solutions are marked with a “D” and are labeled on the scoresheet

with the solution number (#) being duplicated.

NOTE: Do not confuse duplicate solution ideas with duplicate categories. It is acceptable for students to list several solution ideas in the same category. For example, if the UP raises funds, then all solutions will raise funds and thus

have the opportunity to be scored as Relevant. With that said, just changing the person or the organization to raise

funds, or to have similar funding raising endeavors will result in duplicated ideas.

20

After evaluating each solution idea, count the number of relevant responses and determine the numerical score according to the scale on the scoresheet.

□ SCORE Fluency for each solution in Step 3 by awarding:

Credit for each solution that receives an “R” or check mark in the first column on the

scoresheet. (For Middle Grades and High School see the scoresheet for scores to be awarded based on the range for the Yes challenges for the Fluency score.) NO credit if a solution does not solve the UP, is scored a Perhaps, How, Why, or Duplicate.

Credit MUST be given to at least one solution idea.

Award credit for Relevant solutions with NO Purpose if the solutions are written to show a logical connection

between the CP, KVP and Future Scene charge. The MG and HS divisions may receive credit for a maximum of 4 Relevant solutions and EL is limited to 2 solutions. (Credit MUST be given to at least one solution idea.)

Assign a score of 0 for Elaboration IF there is no Purpose; OR

Assign a score of 0 for Elaboration IF there is no Purpose and the Imposed Purpose was

written inside brackets [ ] by the evaluator on the scoresheet for easy identification. In competitive evaluation, solutions are judged strictly on meeting the terms of the KVP, the Imposed

Purpose, and the FSP.

Scoring Issues when the UP is written with one of the “critical errors” results in the limitation of the number of Relevant solutions to be awarded in Step 3.

Reminder: Solution ideas will have a limit of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions) possible

solutions if the UP is a Restatement (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions). Reminder: Solution ideas will have a limit of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions) possible

solutions if the UP is a Circular (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions).

Reminder: Solution ideas will have a limit of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions) possible solutions if the UP is an Absolute Verb (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions).

Reminder: Solution ideas will have a limit of 25% of the total (16 in HS & MG and 8 in EL divisions) possible solutions if the UP is written Without a Purpose (Maximum of 4 for HS and MG and 2 for EL Divisions).

ELABORATION (1-8)—To be considered for Elaboration, a solution must first be scored as Relevant. An elaborated solution idea is any relevant solution that includes at least three of the who, what, why, and how elements. Where and when do not fulfill the elaboration criteria. Teams do not have to write a paragraph in order to earn elaboration points, nor should they earn elaboration points just for writing a paragraph. Solution ideas elaborated by simply tacking on the KVP and/or Purpose are NOT considered for elaboration credit for more than three (3) different solutions within a booklet. Evaluators should provide these teams feedback containing suggestions on ways to specifically elaborate their solution ideas. Mark an “E” or use a check mark for the solution number for each relevant solution idea that qualifies as elaborated. If not elaborated, leave the space blank.

Count the number of solution ideas identified as elaborate and determine the numerical score according to the scale on the scoresheet.

□ SCORE Elaboration for each solution in Step 3 by awarding:

Credit if and only if the solution received an “R” in the first column on Step 3 AND answers

three of the four questions; Who, What, Why and How.

NO credit is awarded if a solution is a duplicate.

(For Middle Grades and High School see the scoresheet for scores to be awarded based on the range for the Yes challenges for the Fluency score.)

While it is helpful to include when and where, these will only be counted toward elaboration if substantive in nature (“in the year 2007 in the U.S.” is not substantive). When adding who, it must be an appropriate who. (Children of the world will not pass legislation.)

21

Who indicates a logical person, expert, agency or organization who will implement the solution idea; the “who” should identify the person or group capable of carrying out the solution. A pronoun such as we, they,

he/she is not sufficient to count as a “who.”

What states what the solution idea is that will address the KVP.

How describes how the solution idea will work.

Why explains why the solution idea will solve the UP (KVP and P); why it is a good idea.

When (optional) designates a timeline, a specific date for completion, timeframes for specific ideas to occur,

etc.

Where (optional) describes specific relevant places necessary for the solution idea to occur.

Here is an example of an elaborated (overelaborated, for the sake of illustration) solution idea utilizing who, what, how, why, and a substantive where and when:

In association with the RealLife business, the Electronic Association for an Ethical Society will work with the owners of the lifelogging business and the participants and their families (Who) to establish electronic filters (What) that will allow these young participants to be a part of the decision making process for things that get displayed to the Internet (Where) on a daily basis (When). Participants will set guidelines that are entered into a computer program (How) that is specifically designed to monitor for unethical behavior. Through this monitoring, the participants can be active in allowing/not allowing various aspects of one’s life accessible to be displayed for all to view (Why).

Here is an example of an non-elaborated solution idea that tells what the solution ideas is connected to the KVP and Purpose, but does not explain how the solution idea will work:

Electronic filters (What) will allow RealLife participants to be a part of the decision-making process for things

that get displayed to the Internet on a daily basis. Participants will set guidelines that are then entered into a

computer program that is designed to monitor for unethical behavior (How).

Reminder: If there is NO Written Purpose or stated goal, Elaboration points must NOT be awarded to any of the

solution ideas. This includes any Imposed Purpose written by the evaluator.

FLEXIBILITY (1-8)—Numerical score that refers to the diversity of thought in relevant solution ideas scored as Relevant (R). Only R solutions may be considered and scored for Flexibility. Students should demonstrate

Flexibility in their thinking and generate solutions for the Underlying Problem from different perspectives or categories.

Evaluators take each of the following areas into consideration in scoring solutions for Flexibility:

DO NOT ASSIGN CATEGORIES TO SOLUTIONS THAT DO

NOT RECEIVE AN R!!!

Categorize the Relevant (R) solutions on the scoresheet. Use

the category list provided on the left side of the scoresheet for

Step 3 to check the different categories used by the team. Refer to the Relevant (R) solution examples on page 18 and

identify the categories associated with each of the Relevant solutions. (Bulleted Solution 1: categories 3, 17, 11, 9;

Bulleted Solution 2: categories 17, 9; Bulleted Solution 3:

categories 11) Evaluators are encouraged to assign all categories that apply to

a solution. You may award more than one category for each relevant solution that receives an “R”. Flexibility points are awarded based on the number of unique

categories identified. Count the number of different categories used and determine the numerical score according to the scale on

the scoresheet. Each category number may be counted toward flexibility only once.

□ SCORE Flexibility for each solution in Step 3 by awarding: Credit for each solution that receives an “R” with a category number from the left side of the

scoresheet.

Category List

1 Arts & Aesthetics 10 Government & Politics

2 Basic Needs 11 Law & Justice

3 Business & Commerce 12 Miscellaneous

4 Communication 13 Physical Health

5 Defense 14 Psychological Health

6 Economics 15 Recreation

7 Education 16 Social Relationships

8 Environment 17 Technology

9 Ethics & Religion 18 Transportation

22

NO credit if a solution DID NOT score an “R” in Fluency. Middle Grades and High School see the scoresheet for scores to be awarded based on the number of Categories assigned and the corresponding number on the scoresheet for the Flexibility score.)

Reminder: Award NO credit if a Solution DID NOT score an “R” in Fluency. ORIGINALITY (1 point for each)– Especially insightful, rare or creative thinking that received an “R” in Fluency should be considered for Originality. Students have a chance to show their

creativity and futuristic thinking through unique solution ideas. Although evaluators encourage

creativity, wildly futuristic ideas are not necessarily original. Imaginative inventions are fun, but must include how or why explanations. An invention can’t happen just because someone says it will. A

relevant solution idea must have substance for a team to receive originality points. Mark Original (O) next to each Relevant solution idea judged original. Enter the total number of originals on the scoresheet and multiply by 1.

DO NOT AWARD ORIGINALITY TO SOLUTIONS THAT DO NOT RECEIVE AN “R”!!!

□ SCORE Originality in Step 1 by awarding: 1 point: For EACH solution that shows unique creativity or insight into the Future Scene, and received an

“R” for Relevant.

1 point: For EACH solution that shows creative thinking above and beyond the thinking of similarly aged

peers. 0 points: If the solution in the booklet does NOT go beyond ordinary thinking.

Reminder: Only Relevant solutions can receive credit for being Original. NO credit if a solution does not receive an “R” in the first column

(See the scoresheet for Originality scores to be e awarded for each original solution)

Notes about Steps 1-3

23

STEP 4 – GENERATE and SELECT CRITERIA Objective: The objective is to determine and write criteria that measure how well the solution ideas accomplish what the UP mandates. Criteria are the standards by which solution ideas are judged. The purpose is to structure each criterion (Step 4) to measure the comparative quality of solution ideas to determine the best solution

to use in developing the Action Plan in Step 6.

Correctly Written ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4 5

Relevant …………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NO WORK ATTEMPTED …………………………………………………………………………………………0

Correctly Written (0-5)–Each criterion focuses on three (3) structural elements and all three (3) must be

present:

1. a single dimension/standard (focuses on only one concern), 2. demonstrates a measure of degree (uses a superlative, such as most, least, fewest, greatest, etc.),

3. indicates the desired direction/outcome (each criterion will have a positive outcome i.e. least

costly instead of most expensive).

Since each criterion must be measurable, the term “best” is not an appropriate superlative. Criteria written using the superlative “BEST” MUST be scored as INCORRECTLY written. Although many teams write criteria in a question

format (Which solution is the most humane?), doing so is not required. Correctly written criteria may be a single word (cheapest), a phrase (most appropriate), or a statement (This solution is the most timely response to the issue). ALL

Criteria must be evaluated for Relevance separately except for any duplicated criterion which will be

scored a zero (0) for Correctly Written AND Relevance.

At this point, an evaluator is not deciding the value of the team’s criteria in ranking the solution ideas. Correctly

written is a question of structure.

□ SCORE Correctly Written in Step 4 by awarding:

1 point: If each criterion has a single dimension, uses a superlative, is in a desired direction, AND is not

a duplicate.

0 Points: If the criterion is not written correctly or is a duplicate.

If any of the three structural elements for a criterion is NOT met, circle the zero (0) for the

corresponding criterion on the scoresheet.

NOTE: Creativity is important. When scoring the Overall section after scoring Step 6, evaluators should note the overuse of the same superlative in Step 4. Although using the same superlative for all five criteria can result in full credit being awarded in Step 4, it can have a negative effect on the Creativity Score in the Overall step of the scoresheet.

Relevance (0-10)– This is a qualitative score that assesses the merit or value of each criterion and determines the extent to which each criterion is an important consideration in evaluating the solution ideas.

Relevance assesses the importance of the criteria chosen in Step 4 in relation to the UP and the team’s goals from

Step 2 within the parameters of the Future Scene. Criteria fall into three classifications.

1. Not Relevant – No relationship to the CP, UP, KVP, Purpose, Population

(Stakeholders) or Future Scene is evident, OR is a Duplicated criterion (Give credit to the best of the duplicates). Which solution will be the most accepted by the United Nations? (What does connections does this have to the Future Scene about the Impact of Social Media?)

2. Generic – These criteria are relevant in measuring concerns to almost any problem. They include generic

measures of cost, public acceptance, resources, time for implementation, etc. (Elementary booklets are only scored for Generic Criteria.) Which solution will be easiest for the community to implement in 2032?

3. Specific – These criteria are specific to the CP, KVP, P, Population (Stakeholders within the Future Scene), or Process of the UP or show significance to a related issue of the Future Scene. Because they are more specific,

24

they show greater insight into the UP and are more effective in delineating the solution idea that is the best to use for the Action Plan in Step 6. See examples at the bottom of the page. A criterion may be scored as Specific to the CP, KVP, P and Population ONLY once. Process may be used more than once when judging a Specific criterion.

Each criterion will be evaluated for Relevance using a scale of 0—2. If a criterion is incorrectly written, it will still be scored for Relevance except for a DUPLICATION of in the case a criterion is deemed NOT RELEVANT.

□ SCORE Relevance in Step 4 by awarding:

2 points: If the criterion is specific to the goals of the team’s UP by targeting the CP, KVP, Purpose,

Population (Stakeholders), or an important aspect of the Future Scene related to the UP (Process). 1 Point: If the criterion identified is generic; could be applied to any UP.

0 Points: If the criterion is NOT relevant, or is a duplicate to another criterion.

Reminder: In Step 4, NO criterion may be judged for specificity for Purpose or may receive credit as a specific criterion if an Imposed Purpose was applied in the UP.

Reminder: The CP, KVP, P, and Population (Stakeholders) may be used to score a Specific criterion ONLY once. Process may be used in each criterion, if it applies, and is not one of the above.

Reminder: Tacking on the CP, KVP or Purpose in each criterion will cause the criterion to be incorrectly written

with two dimensions and will not be scored for specificity after any subsequent duplicated two dimensional entry.

NOTE: If a criterion contains more than one dimension, use the first one to determine the Relevance score. Which solution will result in the largest decrease in infringement of privacy rights for the participants in the lifelogging program, so that their personal rights might be better upheld? 0 points for Correctly Written (tacking on the Purpose causes the phrasing of the criterion to have a multiple dimension) 2 points for Relevance

(scored against first dimension of the criterion). If a team writes each criterion with the same Purpose, KVP, CP, etc. tacked on at the end, then each subsequent criterion after the first one receiving a score for Specificity will be

scored as generic. This should also be considered when scoring Creativity in Step 6.

Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that

records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7,

how might we increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process so

that their personal rights might be better upheld?

These five criteria are generated from the UP about the Impact of Social Media Future Scene.

A completed chart with Step 4 scores is on the top of the next page. Award an appropriate Structure score under the heading Correctly Written. Examples for Structure are highlighted in the first two columns. Then assess

for the Relevance Scores which are to the right of the black column. Only one number may be awarded for Relevance, a zero (0), a one (1) or a two (2). Zero (0) is awarded if a Criterion is Not Relevant or a Duplicate.

Generic Relevance is indicated if the criterion can be used with any UP for any topic. Specific Relevance scores are indicated if a criterion is specific to the Condition Phrase, the Key Verb Phrase, the Purpose or the stated

Population/Stakeholders in the Underlying Problem. These four (4) scores for specifity may be awarded ONLY ONCE

for each Underlying Problem. The Process score, or method of progression, identified as the team’s thinking evolves from the issues occuring in the Future Scene, to the action to be taken in the KVP and the goal to be accomplished,

can be assigned as a specific criterion more than once.

Step 4: Generate Criteria 1. Which solution will result in the largest decrease in infringement of privacy rights for the participants in the

lifelogging program?

2. Which solution will provide the greatest potential for empowerment of children in their decision making process?

3. Which solution will generate the greatest ability to uphold the personal rights of lifeloggers?

4. Which solution will be most accepted by the parties involved with RealLife program for lifelogging?

5. Which solution will provide the greatest understanding that lifelogging imposes on its participants’ privacy issues?

25

The criteria written above show a stair-stepped order for Specificity with UP on the previous page. For the purpose of

showing examples, all are correctly written and are specific to the UP as it relates to the Future Scene.

Additional examples of criteria are located below for the purpose of discussing the impact Generic vs Specific Criteria

has on Step 4 scores.

These five criteria are Generic examples. As written, these criteria receive one point each for being Generic instead of Specific. At the Elementary level of competition, this is most likely what evaluators will see in the competitive

booklets. Note that #3 has referenced the topic, Social Media. Putting in the Future Scene Parameters (topic, time,

place) is not a qualifier for the evaluator to award credit for specificity.

These five criteria are incorrectly written. All examples are written in the wrong direction or with the superlative “best.” Although they are incorrectly written, all MUST be scored for the quality of each criterion, or the Relevance of

each, in Step 4.

Notes about Steps 4 & 5

#

Correctly

Written

(0 or 1)

Duplicate = 0

Not Relevant

or a

Duplicate

or

Relevance is

Generic

or

Relevance is Specific to:

Condition Phrase, Key Verb Phrase, Purpose,

Population (Stakeholder), Process

CP KVP P POP PRO

Feedback

1 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

2 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

3 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

4 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

5 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2

CW Total 5 Only Process accepted more than once Total of Relevant Points 10

Step 4: Generate Criteria 1. Which solution will be the easiest to implement?

2. Which solution will take the least amount of time?

3. Which solution will have the greatest benefit for Social Media use?

4. Which solution will be most accepted the citizens?

5. Which solution will cost the least?

Step 4: Generate Criteria 1. Which solution will be the hardest to implement on the Internet? (Incorrectly Written, Generic)

2. Which solution will take the greatest amount of time to reconstruct the daily online program for the lifeloggers

seeking more personal rights? (Incorrectly Written, Specific to the Purpose)

3. Which solution will have the best benefit for Social Media use? (Incorrectly Written, Generic)

4. Which solution will be least accepted the citizens? (Incorrectly Written, Generic)

5. Which solution will carry the greatest expense for the lifelogging company to assess the empowerment of the

program’s participants in 2032? (Incorrectly Written, Specific to the KVP)

26

STEP 5 – APPLY CRITERIA to SOLUTION IDEAS (GRID) Objective: To develop an evaluation matrix to determine the best solution idea to use in developing an Action Plan. Students select their most applicable 8 solution ideas and apply the criteria by using the evaluation matrix (grid) in determining the best solution idea to use for Step 6 Action Plan.

Correct use of the grid includes accurate addition in determining totals. A team should use the solution that scored the highest in developing the Action Plan; if not, score as manipulated grid with a score of zero (0). If there is a tie

for the highest ranking solution in the grid, teams must choose to use one or the other. The team is NOT required to explain to evaluators the reasoning behind its choice. If a team combines two or more unrelated solutions to

develop their Action Plan, the grid should receive an automatic zero (0) points for Correctly Used. The highest scoring solution in the grid becomes the main focus of the Action Plan development in Step 6.

If no work has been attempted on this section a score of zero (0) can be awarded.

Correctly Used ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………0 1 2 3 4 5

NO WORK ATTEMPTED ……………………………………………………………………………………..0

Correctly Used (0-5)— Examine the evaluation matrix (Grid) to insure the numbers in it are used correctly.

Correct use of the Grid includes ranking the solution ideas and accurate addition in determining totals. Totals for each solution idea are determined by adding the ranks across the columns. Solution ideas are

ranked in each vertical column with 1 (low) to 8 (high), or 1 through the number of solutions entered in the grid. (1 point is deducted for each duplicated number or error in each column. Note Chart on Page 4 for any differences in Governor’s Cup and Component Events.)

Each number should be used only once with one exception: if a team feels two solution ideas satisfy a criterion equally, the two ranks that would have been given are averaged. Therefore, half-points are used for

“ties.” (1 point is deducted for repetition of numbers within a column(s) that do not meet this exception.) A single criterion may be weighted if a team feels that criterion is especially important. It is essential,

however, that numbers are still entered correctly. If a criterion is double weighted, the numbers 2 (low)

through 16 (high) would be used in increments of two. (1 point is deducted for each error. Note Chart on Page 4 for any differences in Governor’s Cup and Component Events.)

Correct use includes accurate addition of the assigned ranks for the solution ideas listed in the grid to determine totals. Totals for each solution idea are determined by adding the ranks across the columns. (1 point is deducted for each addition error.)

Zero (0) points are assigned if a team does not use the solution idea that scored highest on

the Grid as the main focus of its action plan. (Other closely related solution ideas may be used

in the Action Plan as support for the best solution idea. However, this is not recommended. This is an example of manipulated grid.)

Obvious manipulation of the grid (all numbers the same in all rows, using more than one unrelated solution idea in the Action Plan in Step 6) is ignoring the problem solving process. (0 points are

assigned.)

The evaluator should refer to rubric for appropriate scores assigned if errors are present in the grid. Circle the correct

score on the scoresheet as indicated by the following list: □ SCORE Grid in Step 5 by awarding:

5 points: If the Grid is perfect; not manipulated; the top solution used 4 points: If the Grid contains one error (Addition error or using the same number twice in the same

column, etc.) 3 points: If the Grid contains two errors (Addition mistake/s or the same number/s used twice in the

same column, etc.) 2 points: If the Grid contains three errors (Any combination of addition mistake/s or the same number/s

used twice in the same column, etc.) 1 point: If the Grid contains four errors (Any combination of addition mistake/s or the same number/s

used twice in the same column, etc.) 0 points: If the Grid contains five or more errors (any combination of addition mistakes, the same

number/s used twice in the same column, an incomplete grid, etc.), is manipulated (all columns have the

27

exact numbers in each row), combined unrelated solutions in the Action Plan, or the top solution was not used.

Reminder: If a team chooses to write its final Action Plan about a solution that did not receive the most points in

the total ranking, a score of zero (0) for a manipulated grid will be awarded. In addition in Step 6, the booklet will

receive a one (1) in Relevance. Reminder: The Elementary grid uses only four (4) solution ideas and 5 criteria, which do not have to be specific.

Therefore the range in those rankings will be from 1 to 4 (unweighted).

Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that records

and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7, how might we

increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process so that their personal

rights might be better upheld?

Grid Example from page : Grid has been used correctly.

See FPS Evalaution Manual Supplement for examples of Grid errors.

NOTE: Column 4 has the point totals doubled to indicate a weighted criterion.

Step 4: Generate Criteria 1. Which solution will result in the largest decrease in infringement of privacy rights for the participants in the

lifelogging program?

2. Which solution will provide the greatest potential for empowerment of children in their decision making

process?

3. Which solution will generate the greatest ability to uphold the personal rights of lifeloggers?

4. Which solution will be most accepted by the parties involved with RealLife program for lifelogging?

5. Which solution will provide the greatest understanding that lifelogging imposes on its participants’ privacy

issues?

Grid

Solution Ideas Solutions

Step 4 Criteria Total

1 2 3 4 5

3 Youth Emancipation 2 5 6 10 4 22

4 Disconnect Protocol 8 4 3 6 5 23

6 GPS Blocker App 7 3 1 2 3 15

12 GAL 3 7 8 14 7 32

10 Electronic Assoc./Ethical 4 8 7 16 6 33

16 Data Obfuscation 5 6 4 12 8 29

14 Limited access 1 2 5 8 1 16

17 Stop Membership 6 1 2 4 2 15

Grid 1 STEP 4 & 5 SCORES

CW and Relevance score from previous examples

CORRECTLY WRITTEN 0 1 2 3 4 5

RELEVANCE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

GRID USED CORRECTLY 0 1 2 3 4 5

NO WORK ATTEMPTED = 0

STEPS 4 & 5 TOTAL 20

28

STEP 6 – DEVELOP an ACTION PLAN Objective: To develop an Action Plan based on the highest scoring solution idea in Step 3 and to explain and demonstrate its relevance and importance to the UP and the Future Scene.

An Action Plan is a proposal for solving the Underlying Problem. The Action Plan should explain in detail the who, what, how, why, where and when of the solution idea. Developing an AP involves moving from creative ideas into action; a new idea is incomplete until it is a workable idea. The AP demonstrates how it addresses the problem area in

Step 2 and how it affects the Future Scene.

Teams may add new facets to their Action Plan at this point, as long as each addition represents a subpart of the Step

3 solution idea. Combining two or more solutions is not recommended.

If a team combines two or more unrelated solution ideas in their AP, the evaluator should score only the first solution

for Relevance, Effectiveness, Impact and Humaneness and adjust the Grid score in Step 5 to an automatic zero (0).

A score of 1 on Relevance, Effectiveness and Impact should be reserved for action plans that are “off” the UP and the Future Scene all together, or that contain a UP with a critical error in its structure.

If and ONLY if no work has been attempted on this section, can a score of zero (0) be awarded. Relevance ...............................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5

Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5

Impact ...................................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Humaneness ..........................................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5

Development of Action Plan ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NO WORK ATTEMPTED ................................................................................................................... 0

Relevance (1-5)– Almost identical to the relevance criterion in Step 3, relevance in Step 6 measures the extent to

which the Action Plan is relevant to the UP. It is determined by comparing the Action Plan to goals stated in the UP. The Relevance of the AP is determined on a 1-5 scale. If the relationship is excellent, a score of 5 is awarded. Lower

scores are given to solutions that are off target or not specific. Use the descriptors on the scoresheet to determine the numerical score. If team does not use the highest ranked solution from Step 5, they will receive a 1 in Relevance.

□ SCORE Relevance for the Action Plan in Step 6 by awarding:

5 points: If the AP is developed from a solution in Step 3 that is the highest ranking and has an

excellent relationship to the UP. (See the scoresheet for scores to be awarded for the range of Relevant solutions)

4 points: If the highest ranking solution idea does a good job of addressing the UP.

2-3 points: If the highest ranking idea has some relationship to UP; another solution might be

better.

1 point: If the AP does not address the UP, is not the highest ranking solution, OR is either

Circular, a Restatement, uses an Absolute KVP, OR had no Purpose.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for Relevance for the Action Plan).

Effectiveness (1-5)– This scale measures the potential effectiveness of the Action Plan in

relation to the goals stated in the Underlying Problem. In differentiating between Relevance and Effectiveness, Relevance asks whether the AP addresses the UP; Effectiveness asks

whether the Action Plan successfully solves the UP. The Effectiveness of the Action Plan is ranked on a 1-5 scale. An effective Action Plan is one that does much to solve the UP. A low

score is given to an AP that does very little or nothing to achieve the goals stated in the UP. Use

the descriptors on the scoresheet to determine the numerical score. □ SCORE Effectiveness for the Action Plan in Step 6 by awarding:

5 points: If the AP creatively solves the UP and gives detailed explanation. 4 points: If the AP adequately solves the UP and provides elaboration clearly connected to the

UP. 2-3 points: If the AP solves some aspects of the UP and elaboration lacks connection to the UP. 1 point: If the AP does little to solve UP; OR UP is either Circular, a Restatement, uses an Absolute Verb in the KVP, OR had No Purpose.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for Effectiveness for the Action Plan)

29

Impact (1-5)– This scale measures the positive impact of the AP on the Future Scene. Generally, teams that

perform well on previous steps of the booklet do well on this sub-section. The evaluator must assess the Impact of the

AP on the Future Scene. An effective Action Plan for a UP that scores well in Focus and Adequacy in Step 2 usually receives a high score in this section. Lower scores are assigned to Action Plans that are not as good in

one or both of these areas. Use the descriptors on the scoresheet to determine the numerical score. □ SCORE Impact for the Action Plan in Step 6 by awarding:

5 points: If the AP has a strong, positive effect on the FS; UP scored high in Adequacy.

4 points: If the AP has some effect on FS; UP scored average in Adequacy.

2-3 points: If the effect on the Future Scene is not strong; UP scored low in Adequacy.

1 point: If the AP has little to no effect; OR UP is either Circular, a Restatement, uses an

Absolute Verb in the KVP, OR had No Purpose. UP scored one (1) in Adequacy.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for Impact for the Action Plan.)

Humaneness (1-5)– This scale measures the productive, positive potential of the AP as opposed to its destructive, negative potential. To score this section, the evaluator must anticipate the practical consequences in implementing the

Action Plan. Humaneness of an Action Plan is scored independently of Relevance, Effectiveness and Impact. While an AP may score poorly in the other Step 6 criteria, it can still score well in Humaneness. The evaluator must score

Humaneness on a 1-5 scale. A score of 2 on the scale represents a neutral solution. Higher numbers are awarded if

the solution actively seeks to be constructive; lower scores are assigned if it is actively destructive. Use the descriptors on the scoresheet to determine the numerical score.

□ SCORE Humaneness for the Action Plan in Step 6 by awarding: 5 points: If a practical, positive, constructive AP is written.

3-4 points: If positive potential outweighs negative potential in AP.

2 points: If the AP is Neutral, neither Negative nor Positive.

1 point: If the AP is Negative or Destructive.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for Humaneness for the Action Plan)

Development of Action Plan (1-10)– The development of the AP measures the degree to which a team creates a strategy for addressing the UP. An AP that scores high in this area would fully describe

the action to be taken and outline the steps that are necessary to complete the plan. The AP may also explain the challenges that must be overcome to achieve its goal. The idea

is to paint a complete picture of the plan. An AP that simply restates the solution idea from Step 3 would score on the low end of this scale. A well-developed Action Plan is

fully explained and elaborated. The AP may describe any obstacles to overcome in

implementing the plan, and explains why and how the plan has a positive impact on the Future Scene, topic and society. Use the descriptors on the scoresheet to determine the numerical score.

□ SCORE Development of Action Plan in Step 6 by awarding: 9 or 10 points: If AP is elaborated, amplifies actions to be taken, & considers obstacles that

may occur.

6, 7 or 8 points: If AP illustrates the who, what, why and how in detail.

3, 4 or 5 points: If the AP provides some elaboration; more support of ideas is needed.

1 or 2 points: If minimal description of AP is written; team rewrites Step 3 solution idea.

0 points: If no work was attempted for Step 6.

Reminder: A Restatement of the UP must be scored lower for Effectiveness and Impact in Step 6.

Evaluators are instructed to consider this when scoring Creative Strength, because it is a critical error in the creative process.

Reminder: A Circular UP must be scored lower for Effectiveness and Impact in Step 6. Evaluators are instructed to consider this when scoring Creative Strength, because it is a critical error in the creative

process.

30

UP to be used to score the Action Plan Since children like Susanna are participating in 2032 in the RealLife lifelogging program that

records and makes public through the Internet all thoughts and experiences of their lives 24/7,

how might we increase the empowerment of child lifeloggers in their decision making process so

that their personal rights might be better upheld?

Step 6: Development of Action Plan

Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Summit on Information Society:

Realizing the that greatest concern with the operation of the RealLife lifelogging program is that the participating children are vulnerable to rights violations because they have no power to control the aspects of their lives that are

revealed to the general public, we propose Personal Space, an electronic filter to allowing child lifeloggers the ability to

choose the aspects of their life which should be kept private.

Here is how it works. Before parents can enroll their children as participants in lifelogging programs like RealLife.com, they must attend a joint meeting with a representative of the Electronic Association for an Ethical Society and a

representative of the lifelogging company. At this meeting, the EAES representative will inform the child lifelogger about the potential risks of participation in the program and discuss aspects of his or her life that he or she desires to

keep private. Before leaving the meeting, the child would be able to choose parameters under which his or her life

could be monitored. For example, a Susanna might indicate that she is not yet secure about her body, and would prefer that she not be recorded and viewed by the entire world when she is in her swimsuit. Alternatively, she might

indicate that she needs at least one hour each night to address private matters away from the eyes of the nation.

Once the child’s interests have been considered, company representatives will load these preferences into the Personal

Space Electronic Filter. Personal Space operates as a smart software program that scans the activities being recorded by the lifelogging technology for key words and images. For example, when Susanna approaches a pool or indicates

that the is about to put on her swim suit, the Personal Space filter will blur the audio feed so that Susanna is not seen. Alternatively, if Susanna set her privacy hour 7:00 p.m., the Personal Space filter would be programmed to sever the

connection between her monitoring equipment and her website. Notably, the filter is at the company level so that Susanna could continue to record these private aspects her life if she chose, but she would have the power to decide

who, if anyone, could view it.

Among other obstacles that this system could face is that the child might not be old enough to understand the

circumstances or make an informed decision. After all, Susanna was a new-born baby when her parents agreed to allow RealLife.com access to her life. In such circumstances, the Electronic Association for Ethical Society would stand

in a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the child. The EAES member would advocate that the Personal

Space filter should initially have high privacy settings. As soon as the child becames of sufficient age, he or she could adjust the settings and even release previously recorded portions that he or she does not mind others seeing.

With the Personal Space electronic filter, children lifeloggers will be empowered to make their own decisions

about what aspects of their life are transparent to the public. As a result, they will have the ability to protect their own rights from being violated by the lifelogging programs. These changes will still allow the world to enjoy

lifelogging while protecting the privacy of the child participants themselves.

31

OVERALL

Objective: To combine content (research) and process (creative problem solving) effectively to work from a Future Scene into a focused Action Plan. This score is a holistic view of the entire booklet—not of any particular part. Scoring content within the Overall step should be considered regardless of whether or not individual

Steps 1-6 received full credit.

Research Applied ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Creative Strength ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6

Futuristic Thinking .......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6

Research Applied (1-6)— This scale measures a team’s use of research in the booklet. Student

work in each step of the process is examined for connection to the research available on the topic,

as well as knowledge of issues and trends in general. Concepts from the research, terms from the research, and noticeable flexibility are all indications of research applied. Using the scoresheet, the

evaluator should rank the overall research applied on a 1-6 scale. Applicable research must have a connection to the Future Scene, but will not always receive full credit.

□ SCORE Research Applied in for the Overall score by awarding:

6 points: If research is apparent in connecting challenges, solution ideas and AP.

4 or 5 points: If research is noticeable in generating challenges, solution ideas and AP.

2 or 3 points: If students demonstrate a limited knowledge of topic; more research could be tied

to ideas.

1 point: If there is only minimal demonstration of research, terms, concepts, issues, trends, etc.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for application of research.)

Creative Strength (1-6)— This scale assesses the overall creative productive thinking

evidenced in the booklet. Skillful use of the problem solving process is also indicative of creative thinking. Responses showing creative strength are those requiring intellectual

energy to make mental leaps beyond obvious or commonplace responses. You should look in

any or all steps for innovative or unconventional thinking and for ideas indicating fresh insights and perceptions. High scores on the creative scales of Fluency, Flexibility,

Elaboration and Originality are also signs of Creative Strength. Creative Strength is also evidenced in the varied use of the process while problem solving. Repetition of written phrases

in various sections of the booklet limits the creativity of the team. Using the scoresheet criteria and the overall

creativity of the booklet, evaluators assign a score on a 1-6 scale. SCORE Creative Strength for the Overall score by awarding:

6 points: If booklet has strong display of inventive, ingenious ideas not solely dependent on scores

awarded for Originality.

4 or 5 points: If booklet has creative productive thinking and fresh insights going beyond the

ordinary.

2 or 3 points: If booklet has evidence of innovative thinking.

1 point: If booklet demonstrates traditional ideas rather than innovative ideas.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for creative strength throughout the booklet.)

Futuristic Thinking (1-6)— This scale assesses the ability of the team to:

1. Put themselves in the time frame of the Future Scene, and

2. Extrapolate relevant trends and technologies from its research as it identifies

futuristic challenges and to create workable, futuristic solutions. The evaluator should note there is a difference between creative, futuristic solutions and those solutions that are trivial

and or “cutesy.” In each step, teams should show an understanding of how their work

could impact future society. SCORE Futuristic Thinking in the Overall score by awarding:

6 points: If booklet does an excellent job of tying ideas to futuristic concepts.

4 or 5 points: If booklet shows good understanding of how ideas impact the future.

32

2 or 3 points: If booklet shows basic understanding of how ideas impact the future.

1 point: If booklet shows little understanding of how ideas impact the future.

(Circle the scores on the scoresheet to be awarded for futuristic thinking throughout the booklet.)

Notes about Step 6 and Overall

The evaluator’s certification session is now completed. Please review all steps and SUBTOTALS for

mathematical errors and then transfer those scores on the first page of the scoresheet and assign a

final ranking. For reminders about completing the FPS scoresheet, see pages 33-35 in this manual.

The evaluator will now be given an FPS Certification Booklet and scoresheet to be completed and

returned to KAAC within 14 days for coaches and evaluators with 0-1 year of FPS certification. If booklets are not

returned within 14 days, the evaluator will be required to attend another FPS certification clinic before submitting the

booklet for certification.

To obtain a 2+ certification number complete the online certification quiz. Only registrants with two consecutive

previous years of FPS certification (2012-2013 and 2013-2014) may obtain a 2+ certification number. If you were not

certified during these years, you are required to attend a 0-1 year certification clinic and complete the certification

booklet. The FPS Trainer will have a copy of last year’s FPS numbers. If your certification number began with a one

(1) or two (2), then you will be eligible to take the 2+ Certification quiz. Numbers beginning with a zero (0) MUST

complete the Booklet and send it to KAAC within 14 days. Questions for the 2+ quiz will be asked about the FPS

scoring process and will be specific to the FPS Certification Booklet (given to you by the FPS trainer after your

Certification session has ended), FPS Evaluation Manual and Scoresheet.

33

Completing the Scoresheet Reminders Checklist

Important Information to Complete Step 1 on the Scoresheet

Complete Team ID#, Evaluator and District or Regional information.

Mark Yes challenges with a check mark or “Y” in the first column.

Mark each “Y” challenge with at least one Category number. Use the Category List on the left of the scoresheet to mark each unique category used toward the Flexibility score.

NO category may be identified if a challenge receives a P, W, S, or D.

Provide Feedback to explain your reason for not accepting the Challenge as a “Y”.

Mark any correctly written challenge eligible to receive credit for Originality.

Award points for Clarity based on how clearly worded the challenges were written with a cause/effect connection to this specific Future Scene.

Total the columns for Y, Categories, and Originals.

Circle the corresponding entries for Fluency, Flexibility and Clarity on the scoresheet and transpose the numbers into the subtotals.

Insert the number of Originals in the box provided.

A minimum score of one (1) must be assigned for Fluency, Flexibility and Clarity for any work attempted in the booklet.

Feedback must be given for any Challenge NOT awarded a Yes

A Total Score of zero (0) may be assigned in the event that NO WORK WAS ATTEMPTED.

Complete Step 1 Scores. (Maximum possible points without Originals=24)

Important Information to Complete Step 2 on the Scoresheet

Verify Team ID# and UP before scoring Step 2.

Write the UP in the box provided—Note the box for the Stem and Future Scene Parameters

Award scores based on rubric and the FPS Evaluation Manual

A zero (0) may be given ONLY if a part of the UP is missing.

Circle (0) points for Structure according to the rubric and write the Imposed Purpose with brackets [ ] in the space provided.

Assign the Focus and Adequacy scores according to the guidelines. o Score Focus and Adequacy at 1 point each for a Restatement, Circular, Absolute Verb or No

Purpose o Score Focus and Adequacy at 1 point each for an Imposed Purpose .

Score Focus by circling the appropriate box within the rubric.

Score Adequacy by circling the appropriate box within the rubric.

A minimum score of one (1) for Focus and Adequacy must be awarded for any work attempted in the booklet.

A Total Score of zero (0) may be assigned in the event that NO WORK WAS ATTEMPTED.

Feedback MUST be given if a team does not score the maximum points in any column of the scoresheet for Step 2.

Complete Step 2 totals. (Maximum possible points =24)

34

Important information to complete Step 3 on the Scoresheet

Verify Team ID# and UP before scoring Step 3. Identify Relevant solutions with a check mark or “R” in the first column. Score each “R” solution with at least one Category number. Use the Category List on the left and mark

each unique category used toward the Flexibility score. No category may be identified if a solution receives a P, W, H, or D. Provide Feedback to explain your

reason for not accepting the Solution as an “R”. Score solutions for UPs that have the 25% Rule limitation for Restatements, Circular, Absolute Verbs, No

Purpose or Imposed Purpose. Mark any Relevant solution with a check mark or “E” in the appropriate column if the solution answers 3 of

the four questions; Who, What, Why, How. ONLY solutions that are Relevant are eligible to receive credit for Elaboration, Flexibility, or Originality. Solutions without a Purpose are not eligible to receive credit for Elaboration. Total the columns for Relevant, Elaboration, Categories, and Originals. Circle the corresponding entries for Fluency, Elaboration and Flexibility on the scoresheet and transpose to

the numbers into the subtotals. A minimum score of one (1) must be assigned for Fluency, Elaboration and Flexibility for any work

attempted in the booklet. A Total Score of zero (0) may be assigned in the event that NO WORK WAS ATTEMPTED.

Complete Step 3 Scores. (Maximum possible points without Originals=24)

Important information to complete Step 4 on the Scoresheet

Verify Team ID# and Criteria before scoring Step 4. Circle one (1) point for the corresponding number of the criterion if it was Correctly Written (CW) and was

not a duplicate. Circle zero (0) for each criterion NOT Correctly Written because it did not meet at least one of the

following: include a superlative (“best” is not acceptable), focus on one dimension, phrased in a positive direction, or identified as a duplicate.

Feedback MUST be given to explain your reason for circling 0 points for Correctly Written. Total the column for CW and circle the corresponding entry for Correctly Written on the scoresheet;

transpose to the number into the subtotals. A Criterion may NOT be scored as Generic AND Specific. No Relevance credit may be awarded for a Purpose score if the team did not include a Purpose in the UP.

(An Imposed Purpose is also not eligible.) Score for Relevance if the criterion connects to the UP, is within the Future Scene Parameters and is not a

Duplicate (1 point for Generic and 2 points for Specific criteria.) Including the Future Scene Parameters does not cause a criterion to be Specific.

Award Relevance score for any Incorrectly Written criterion. (A criterion written in the Wrong Direction MUST receive a Relevance score)

Do NOT award points for Relevance if the criterion is Not Relevant. (Ex. A criterion written with parameters outside the Future Scene)

Do NOT award points for Relevance if the criterion is a duplicate to another. Feedback MUST be given for any criterion not accepted for a Relevance Score.

Circle the columns for CP, KVP, P, and POP on the scoresheet ONLY ONCE for Relevance. PRO (Process) may be awarded more than once if the connected to the FS and UP.

Total the columns for Relevance (add the total for Generic and Specific) and circle the corresponding entry for Relevance on the scoresheet; and transpose to the numbers into the subtotals.

A Total Score of zero (0) may be assigned in the event that NO WORK WAS ATTEMPTED, or if all criteria were written incorrectly and were NOT relevant.

Complete Step 4 Scores. (Maximum possible points =15)

35

Important Information to Complete Step 5 on the Scoresheet

Verify Team ID# and Grid before scoring Step 5.

Fill out the Grid totals based on the rubric on the scoresheet. If the team did not have an error, did not

manipulate the Grid and used the top solution; award 5 points, etc.

Assign corresponding score if mistakes were made with addition, or duplicating numbers in the column(s).

Feedback MUST be given for any Grid error written in the booklet. Feedback may be written on the

scoresheet for each error with a simple notation such as, “Addition error for Solution #3”, or “Duplicated

number in column #4.”

A Total Score of zero (0) may be assigned in the event that NO WORK WAS ATTEMPTED, or the Grid

contained more 5 or more errors or was incomplete.

Complete Step 5 Score. (Maximum possible points =5)

Important Information to Complete Step 6 on the Scoresheet

Verify Team ID# and UP before scoring Step 6. Review UP and scores awarded in Step 2. Review and award scores for Relevance based on the solution used and relationship to the UP. Explanation

of the AP and the use of creativity is assessed. Be aware of a UP that included one of the “critical errors” and was assessed a score of 1 for Focus and Adequacy. Any one of these errors results in a 1 for Effectiveness.

Review and award scores for Effectiveness based on stated goals and the potential of the AP to solve the UP. Explanation of the AP and the use of creativity is assessed. Be aware of a UP that included one of the “critical errors” and was assessed a score of 1 for Focus and Adequacy. Any one of these errors results in a 1 for Effectiveness.

Review and award scores for Impact looking for the positive effect of the AP on the Future Scene. Adequacy scores in Step 2 should be noted when scoring Impact. Be aware of a UP that included one of the “critical errors” and was assessed a score of 1 for Focus and Adequacy. Any one of these errors results in a 1 for Impact. UP scored a one (1) in Adequacy.

Review and award scores for Humaneness which measures the productive, positive potential of the AP. Review and award scores for Development of Action Plan which assesses the degree to which the team

explains the AP. Description and support of the solution idea is evaluated.

Award scores for the first solution mentioned if two or more unrelated solution are used in the Action Plan. Adjust the grid score in Step 5 to an automatic zero “0”.

Feedback MUST be given for any Action Plan written. Booklets that do not advance to the next level of competition need feedback to improve for next year. Booklets advancing to the next round of competition also need feedback for improvement.

A Total Score of zero (0) may be assigned in the event that NO WORK WAS ATTEMPTED.

Complete Step 6 Scores. (Maximum possible points =30)

Important Information to Complete Overall Scoring on the Scoresheet See Rubric for all descriptors for Overall Scores.

Verify Team ID# and UP before scoring Overall. Score Research Applied by assessing the team’s ability to use basic knowledge, or applying research by

connecting it to challenges, solution ideas and/or Action Plan. Score Creative Strength by assessing the team’s booklet for traditional ideas or inventive, ingenious ideas

not solely dependent on scores awarded for Originality. Score Futuristic Thinking by assessing the team’s booklet for understanding of how ideas impact the future

or for those that have an excellent tie of ideas to futuristic concepts.

Complete Overall Score. (Maximum possible points =18)

Return to Page 1 of the scoresheet and complete the Total PTS for the booklet. Check the scoresheet for mathematical errors and transposing of subtotals. Assign ranks after completing the Total PTS for all booklets.

36

GENERAL COMMENTS

A team that attempts to work on a particular section of the booklet must receive a minimum score of 1 point for each criterion in that section. If the entire section is COMPLETELY blank and no work has been attempted,

however, a score of zero (0) can be awarded for that section.

Exceptions to the rule are: Condition Phrase, Stem, Key Verb Phrase, Purpose, and Future Scene Parameters in Step 2,

the use of Criteria and Grid in Steps 4 and 5.

Upon completing the evaluation of each step, write specific comments on the scoresheet. Although there is only enough space to make a few brief observations, comments are extremely important. This is the evaluator’s chance to

encourage students and give them pointers to improve their problem solving skills. Initially, students look at the score to determine how they performed on a booklet. Shortly thereafter, however, they read the evaluator comments on the

scoresheet for the true determination of their performance, and it is the evaluator’s insights that make the last impression.

After the evaluator complete an evaluation, write comments and assign scores for each section, the total number of points should be determined and entered in the appropriate space. Double-checking addition is a must!

Ranking

The best way to compare booklets is with a ranking system. Using such a system, each evaluator scores an equal

number of booklets and then ranks each booklet according to the total points given to each booklet. Booklets are ranked from 1 (best) to the number of booklets scored. A rank of 1 goes to the highest scoring booklet, a rank of 2

goes to the second highest scoring booklet, and so on. Ranking booklets eliminates scoring differences between tough and lenient evaluators. It also creates a “common language” for comparing booklets from different samples. The rank

of each booklet is recorded in the appropriate space on the scoresheet.

Each step has criteria in the evaluation process that identify the key elements in an FPS booklet. The evaluation of

these elements helps students improve their problem solving skills. While improvement of student work is the primary intent of the evaluation system, it is also designed so students who do the best work receive the highest ranks.

Therefore, when the evaluator finishes a sample of booklets, the evaluator should review the booklets to insure that the teams that did the best work receive the highest ranks.

Competitive Scoring

Students do not see the Future Scene in advance. In these situations, evaluators reward students for responding

directly to the Future Scene. Doing so recognizes teams who use their creativity to respond spontaneously to a situation, thereby furthering FPSP’s educational goal of preparing students to respond to real world

challenges.

For clarification, consider a team preparing for the State Finals or the International Conference. The students spend

time researching the topic and developing ideas that might be relevant to the Future Scene. However, the team does not see the Future Scene until the two-hour competition begins. The students must analyze its contents and

determine what part of their research and information on the topic applies to the Future Scene, and what does not. Unfortunately, teams sometimes rely too much on their preparation and do not use their creativity to respond directly

to the Future Scene. The result may be a booklet that is “flat,” does not pertain to the Future Scene. Do not confuse

this with a team that is well-prepared and connects the research to the competition Future Scene. Research skills are important, and FPS strives to take students to the next level, asking them to apply their knowledge to a specific,

focused situation.

FPSP creates Future Scenes with these thoughts in mind. The Future Scenes emphasize preparation, but also contain

elements that emphasize creativity:

1. Future Scenes revolve around an imaginary, yet realistic, futuristic scenario. The imagined and futuristic elements

of the Future Scene allow FPSP to use its own creativity in producing the scenarios. The FPS program intends for students to build upon the creative elements of the Future Scene and showcase their own creativity.

37

2. Future Scenes concentrate on only a portion of the topic. Not all of the student’s research and information is applicable to the Future Scene and the team members must adjust to utilize appropriate information to their work

in the booklet.

An example is the topic of Drugs used for the affiliate final one year. Instead of describing traditional addictions and

the effects of drugs on society, the Future Scene detailed a virtual reality program with drug-like effects. Using the virtual reality program as the basis of the Future Scene required teams to use only their background on the effects of

drugs rather than their knowledge of drugs as a whole.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PHILOSOPHY OF EVALUATION

The International Conference (IC) winners are those teams that exhibit the best Future Problem Solving skills in response to the Future Scene. More specifically, evaluators look for top-quality work in regard to the following three

areas:

Research

Use of FPS model

Spontaneous response to specifics of International Conference Future Scene

A TIP ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE FUTURE SCENE

Future Scenes become more difficult as the FPS season progresses. Early in the year, Future Scenes are usually more

open-ended and allow teams to develop and enhance their skills. In an effort to get students to think and to help evaluators distinguish teams that memorize from teams that think, the International Conference Future Scene applies

only to a portion of the research available. Therefore, in IC competition, it is up to the students to analyze the Future

Scene and determine what portion of their research is relevant and what is not. The best teams then apply relevant research to the specifics of the Future Scene.

EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR THE STATE FINALS

The evaluation system to be used at is modeled after the one used by the FPSP at the International Conference.

First Round: Booklets are read a minimum of five times by the evaluators that are provided by participating teams.

Each booklet advancing to Governor’s Cup State Finals will be pre-scored by KAAC FPS State Trainers to determine if the UP merits a Focus and Adequacy score of one (1). In addition, each booklet’s Criteria and Grid will be pre-scored

in order to establish consistency throughout First Round evaluations. The UPs and Criteria and Grid will be pre-scored by teams of two (2) a minimum of three (3) times and all must be in agreement when assigning Focus and Adequacy

scores of one (1).

Booklets advance into the semi-final round based on the composite rank from the first round. Composite ranks are tabulated and a breakout point is determined. Ideally the top ten booklets advance into the semi-final, although KAAC

reserves the right to advance additional booklets into the semi-final round if composite ranks are very close.

Semi-Final Round: Using Paired Comparison Analysis (PCA) highly skilled evaluators evaluate the top booklets

determined by the breakout of composite ranks from first round. The semi-final booklets are ranked. The top five

booklets advance to the final round. The remaining booklets maintain their rank from the semi-final round to the over- all ranking. FPS Trainers and experienced evaluators trained in PCA evaluate this round.

Final Round: The top five booklets from the semi-final round are read three times, head-to-head. FPS Trainers and

experienced evaluators evaluate this round.

The top five are ranked by the composite rank from the final round. Ties are broken by judges’ preference.

CONCLUSION Evaluation is a highly rewarding experience. Evaluators expend considerable mental energy during a day of evaluation;

however, they are always re-energized and inspired by the ideas of creative students. Evaluation is the lifeblood of the

Future Problem Solving Program, and the evaluator should take great pride in knowing your evaluation makes a

significant contribution to FPSP and the hundreds of thousands of students who participate.

38

Supplemental Resources

GLOSSARY OF TERMS CATEGORY LIST

2014-15 TOPIC DESCRIPTORS 2014-15 SUGGESTED READINGS FPS RULES FOR COMPETITION

39

Future Problem Solving Glossary 25% RULE

(Step 3)

If the UP is a Restatement; is Circular; or uses an Absolute Verb; or is

Without a Purpose, the team may receive credit for maximum of 25% of the possible total solutions for each division.

Absolute Verb (Step 2)

Absolute verbs are restrictive mandates that lack flexibility and limit the creation of varied solutions. Solutions will either solve perfectly or not at

all. Absolute verbs offer NO flexibility in the action to be taken.

Action Plan (AP) or Final Plan

of Action

(Step 6)

Proposal for solving the Underlying Problem (UP). The basis comes from

the highest scoring solution from Step 5 but is now expanded to explain in

detail the who, what, how, why, where, and when of the solution idea. Will most often consist of three or more paragraphs, but may be presented in a

unique format. This is the culminating work of the Future Problem Solving booklet.

Adequacy:

(Step 2)

Assesses the importance of the problem area used in the UP. Measures the

significance or merit of the UP to be solved.

Booklet: The set of sheets provided to the Future Problem Solving team on which to complete the FPS process.

Category:

(Steps 1 & 3)

A list of 18 different topics that are used to assist students to generate ideas

from a variety of sources.

Cause/Effect Reasons the problems may be occurring in the Future Scene.

Certification Each team in Governor’s Cup must have two (2) people certified for the District

competition: Coach and Evaluator (MUST NOT be the same person)

Certification—Length of Years

0 Years Certification—Expires after 1 year of certification 1 Year Certification—Expires after 1 year of certification 2+ Years Certification—Expires after 2 years of certification

0 Year—First year of FPS Certification—Attend an FPS clinic and

returning a scored Booklet for Certification within 14 days of the clinic.

1 Year –Second year of FPS Certification—Attend an FPS clinic and returning a scored Booklet for Certification within 14 days of the clinic.

2+ Year—Third year of FPS Certification —Attend an FPS clinic and pass an online quiz within 14 days of the clinic. Does NOT require

renewal next year.

Challenge or Concern: (Step 1)

A challenge is an issue, concern, or problem that needs attention or consideration, which relates to the Future Scene.

Charge: Directive, found in Future Scene for the purpose of attacking the areas of

concern.

Circular UP: (Step 2)

Purpose repeats either the CP and/or KVP. This repetition may be contextually the same (verbatim) or a paraphrasing carrying the same

meaning.

Clarity (Step1)

A score to evaluate the description of the challenges identified. Challenges that are clearly worded shows effective clarity in Step 1.

Coach Certified in FPS to have a team eligible in Governor’s Cup.

Component Events KAAC sponsored events that are not associated with the Governor’s Cup

competition. These events include JR Division FPS, Individual FPS, Scenario Writing, Community Problem Solving-Team and Community Problem Solving-

Individual.

Condition Phrase (CP): (Step 2)

A lead-in phrase that describes the situation in the Future Scene that is the basis for the challenge chosen in the Underlying Problem (UP).

Correctly Written:

(Step 4)

Structural elements of criteria in Step 4. Must contain 3 elements to receive

credit for being written correctly: a single dimension, uses a superlative, desired direction/outcome.

Creative Strength:

(Overall)

Assesses the overall creative productive thinking in the booklet.

40

Criteria:

(Steps 4 & 5)

Questions or phrases used by the team to evaluate solution ideas. Criteria

should focus on a single dimension, demonstrate a measure of degree, and indicate the desired direction. Criteria may be classified as Generic or

Specific.

Critical Error (Steps 2, 3, 4 and 6)

If the UP is a Restatement; is Circular; or uses an Absolute Verb; or is Without a Purpose, the team may receive credit for maximum of 25% of

the possible total solutions for each division.

Definitive Statements:

(Step 3)

Correct form for writing Step 3 solution ideas. Solutions written using

probability statements that include such words as “may”, ”might” or “could” may only receive credit for up to three (3) different solutions.

Development of Action Plan:

(Step 6)

Measures the degree to which the team creates a strategy for addressing the

UP. A full description of the solution idea from Step 3 scoring the highest in Step 5 Grid from the Criteria written in Step 4. Goes beyond the description in

Step 3 to include who, what, why, how, where, when and any obstacles that

may interfere with carrying out the solution.

Duplicate:

(Steps 1 and 3)

In Step 1, any challenge that is too contextually similar to a previously scored

challenge that was scored as a Yes.

In Step 3, any solution that is too contextually similar to a previously scored solution idea that was scored as Relevant. No credit is awarded for a

challenge or solution that is a duplicate of another.

Duplicate: (Step 4)

A criterion that is a duplicate of another. No credit is awarded for a criterion that is a duplicate of another.

Future Problem Solving (FPS) –

Team:

Competition in which four students are given a Future Scene and a booklet

which is to be completed within a specified time constraint. Their charge is to problem solve by identifying challenges and solutions in order to solve the

situation presented in the Future Scene.

Effectiveness: (Step 6)

Measures the potential of the AP in relation to the goals stated in the UP. Asks whether the UP successfully solves the UP. Critical Error in writing the UP

causes this score to have the 25% Rule applied.

Elaboration:

(Step 3)

Any relevant solution that includes at least three answers to the four questions:

who, what, why and how. Any solution written by tacking on the KVP and/or

Purpose will NOT be considered for elaboration credit after it has been done three (3) times in Step 3.

Evaluator A person who has received an FPS certification Number by attending an FPS

Certification Clinic and completing the certification requirements. Restrictions for evaluators are listed on page 1 of the FPS Evaluation Manual.

Feedback A requirement of all FPS evaluators when scoring FPS Booklets. The FPS Evaluation Manual includes the guidelines for scoring competitive booklets.

Flexibility: A numerical score based on the number of categories identified within the challenges in Step 1 and the solutions in Step 3. For Middle Grades and High

School divisions, the Flexibility has a range of scores that corresponds to the score awarded. Elementary division has a one-to-one ratio up to the maximum

number awarded.

Fluency: (Steps 1 and 3)

Numerical score based upon the number of challenges identified as a YES in Step 1. Numerical score based upon the number of solution identified as

Relevant in Step 3. For Middle Grades and High School divisions, the Fluency

has a range of scores that corresponds to the score awarded. Elementary division has a one-to-one ratio up to the maximum number awarded.

Focus:

(Step 2)

Identifies a manageable area of concern in which solution ideas can be

developed. UP should be a smaller part of the entire Future Scene. Should narrow the Future Scene without trivializing it.

41

Future Problem Solving –

Individual:

Component Event Competition in which one student is given a Future Scene

and a booklet to be completed within a specified time constraint. The Ind FPS’s charge is to problem solve by identifying challenges and solutions in

order to solve the situation presented in the Future Scene.

Future Scene (Fuzzy) (FS): A hypothetical, what if, scenario based on current information or ideas. Also known as a “Fuzzy”.

Future Scene Parameters (FSP):

(Step 2)

Elements that place the Underlying Problem within the parameters of the

Future Scene, including time, place, and topic. Could be described as the setting of the Underlying Problem.

Futuristic Thinking: (Overall)

Assesses the ability to work within the timeframe of the Future Scene and extrapolate relevant trends and technologies from the research. Does not

mean

Fuzzy (Future Scene, or FS): See Future Scene (FS).

Generic:

(Steps 4 & 5)

Criteria are relevant in measuring concerns to most any problems; nonspecific

to Future Scene, Underlying Problem (UP), or Solutions.

Grid:

(Steps 4 & 5)

Table used in evaluation of solution ideas, solution receiving highest score in

“grid” must be used for Action Plan in Step 6.

How:

(Steps 3 and 6)

Solution idea does not have a clear connection or clear tie to the goals of the

UP or the statement does not identify a solution idea. No credit is awarded

for if scored as a How.

Humaneness:

(Step 6)

Measures the productive, positive potential of the AP as opposed to its

destructive, negative potential.

Impact: (Step 6)

Measures the positive impact of the AP on the Focus of the Future Scene.

Imposed—No Purpose

(Step 2)

A part of the Underlying Problem written with brackets [ ] in the team

booklet when the team does not write a Purpose. A logical connection MUST be made between the Condition Phrase and the KVP to be considered as an

acceptable Imposed Purpose.

Key Verb Phrase (KVP): (Step 2)

One key verb in a phrase connected with only one object or modifier that mandates what will be done to solve the Underlying Problem (UP). The

Key Verb Phrase will occur most often just after the Stem.

No Purpose (Step 2)

Critical part of the Underlying Problem not written by the team. Leaving out the Purpose causes the team to not have a stated goal to accomplish.

Originality:

(Steps 1 and 3)

Especially insightful, rare or creative thinking that receives a YES as a challenge

in Step 1. Especially insightful, rare or creative thinking that receives credit for being a Relevant solution in Step 3.

Penalty: Mandate score for any critical mistake in the FPS process.

Perhaps:

(Steps 1 and 3)

Is ambiguous or true intent cannot be determined, or worded poorly—unclear

in Step 1. No clear connection to the stated goal in the UP; is worded poorly or ambiguous in Step 3. No credit is awarded for either Step if scored as a

Perhaps.

Population: (Steps 2, 4 and 6)

The Future Scene is written about a specific individual or group of people (stakeholder/s). The community in which the Future Scene was written may or

may not be the correct population or stakeholders.

Probability Statement: Correct form for writing Step 1 challenges. Challenges written using definitive forms such as “will” may only receive credit for up to three (3) different

challenges.

Purpose (P): (Step 2)

The outcome or goal expected from the directive set forth by the Key Verb Phrase (KVP).

Qualitative Score:

(Step 2)

Measures the quality of the UP written in the booklet. See Focus and

Adequacy.

Relevance:

(Steps 4 & 5)

Measures the merit or value of each criterion in relation to Solution

statements.

42

Relevance:

(Step 6)

Measures the extent to which the AP is relevant to the UP. Asks whether the

UP addresses the UP. Critical Error in writing the UP causes this score to have the 25% Rule applied.

Relevant:

(Step 3)

Definitive statement written as a solution idea that achieves the goal of the UP.

Addresses the issues of the CP, answers the KVP and supports the Purpose and occurs within the Future Scene Parameters.

Research Applied:

(Overall)

Measures use of applicable research on the topic in the booklet. Students can

also show research by showing knowledge of issues and trends.

Restatement: (Step 2)

A revision of the intent of the charge that does not narrow the topic, or a summary of the entire Future Scene or Topic. This may or may not be

verbatim.

Scoresheet Simplified rubric designed to score FPS booklets from the FPS Evaluation Manual.

Solution:

(Step 1)

An incorrectly written statement for Step 1. A response that suggests how to

solve challenges of the Future Scene is denying an important element of the Future Problem Solving process. If definitive statements using will are used in

more than three YES challenges, credit may be awarded to only three (3).

Solution: (Step 3)

Proposal idea that are stated in definite terms that solve the Key Verb Phrase (KVP) and make a connection to the Purpose.

Stakeholders:

(Steps 2, 4 and 6)

The Future Scene is written about a specific individual or group of people

(stakeholder/s). The community in which the Future Scene was written may or may not be the correct population or stakeholders.

Stem (S):

(Step 2)

Use of the phrase, "How might we"(HMW) OR "In what ways might

we"(IWWMW), in the Underlying Problem (UP).

Step A unique section in the Future Problem Solving process with requirement

specific to each of the six steps and the Overall scores.

Structure:

(Step 2)

Assessment of the composition of the UP. Must contain five (5) elements to

receive full credit. Condition Phrase, Stem, single Key Verb Phrase, single Purpose and three (3) Future Scene Parameters of topic, time and place.

Structure: (Step 4) See Correctly Written.

Specific: (Steps 4 & 5)

Criteria specific to any part of the Underlying Problem (UP) which is within the Future Scene parameters. They show greater insight and are more

effective in evaluating the solution idea that is the best to use for the Action

Plan.

Topic: Released subjects that allow students to research and prepare for the Future

Problem Solving competitions.

Time: The period of time the Future Scene is written about which is usually at least

20 years into the future.

Underlying Problem (UP):

(Step 2)

Challenge that identifies and states a very important issue within the Future

Scene to solve. The UP is made up of the following components: Condition

Phrase, Stem, Key Verb Phrase (KVP), Purpose and Future Scene Parameters.

UP-based criterion A criterion that is based on the ideas from the Underlying Problem with a tie to

the Condition Phrase, KVP or Purpose.

Why:

(Steps 1, 3 and 6)

No clear connection to the Future Scene in Step 1. No clear connection to the

stated goal in the UP; is worded poorly or ambiguous in Step 3. No credit is

awarded for either Step if scored as a Perhaps.

Yes: (Step 1)

Probability statement that identifies a problem or concern occurring within the Future Scene and the Future Scene Parameters. See Probability Statement

or Challenge.

43

Category List for Generating Ideas

1. Arts & Aesthetics

2. Basic Needs

3. Business & Commerce

4. Communication

5. Defense

6. Economics

7. Education

8. Environment

9. Ethics & Religion

10. Government & Politics

11. Law & Justice

12. Miscellaneous

13. Physical Health

14. Psychological Health

15. Recreation

16. Social Relationships

17. Technology

18. Transportation

44

The Impact of Social Media Practice Problem

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Skype, Second Life, wikis, blogging, tweeting ‐ all of these words have entered our lives

in the last few years. The impact of Web 2.0 and the rise of associated social media have changed our lives in many

ways that we are only just beginning to understand.

Regimes have fallen because of the use of social media; careers can be jeopardized due to past and present social events posted on social media; people all over the world are able to collaborate in real time to work and to play. Some

people think social media has a detrimental effect on people’s social lives; others believe it is a new and exciting way of socializing and developing relationships.

How might social media continue to impact our lives? Who will monitor the truth and accuracy of social media? Will

social media lead to increased social isolation or enhanced global collaboration? Is there a need for controls,

monitoring, or restrictions on social media? Do the positives outweigh the detrimental effects? Does any government have the right to legislate the use of social media by its citizens?

Processed Foods Governor’s Cup District

An increased interest in food and health has occurred around the world. Many questions have been asked on this

topic: Where are food products produced? How? Why? Who produces food products? How far have these products travelled? How long have they been stored? How is food tracked from “farm to fork”?

A huge number of food products are now chemically‐enhanced and processed. Foods may be labeled as “natural

flavors,” but these do not necessarily come from the original product. Strawberry flavoring, for example, may have

started out as a bacterial protein. Are preservatives safe? How might the addition of flavor enhancers, vitamins and minerals, phosphate additives, and sugar and fat substitutes affect our overall health? What are beneficial reasons for

using processed foods? What processed foods should we avoid? Genetic engineering is still under study and remains controversial. Nanotechnology represents the latest high technology attempt to infiltrate our food supply. Do these

new technologies pose serious new risks for human health?

Propaganda Governor’s Cup Regional; JR Division FPS Qualifying Problem for December Competition

Propaganda is communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Selective messages are used to produce an emotional rather than rational response from the audience. Common

media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. Propaganda shares techniques with advertising and

public relations.

With growing trends in communication, how will propaganda be spread in the future through digital media? How can

wealth of individuals, groups, or countries advance a particular agenda? In a number of regional and global conflicts, including both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Balkan Conflict , and more recently the conflicts in Iraq

and Afghanistan, propaganda has more typically referred to political or nationalist uses of these techniques. Examples of these techniques include the following: instilling panic, appealing to prejudice, creating a bandwagon, demonizing

the enemy, stating half‐truths, and providing a scapegoat. Propaganda usually exists on both sides of a conflict, but is

often perceived as negative in nature. What are some positive examples of present‐day propaganda? What are some

negative examples of present‐day propaganda?

Enhancing Human Potential Governor’s Cup State Finals; JR Division; Individual Division

Through the use of performance enhancing drugs, personal trainers, speed‐enhancing swimsuits, technologies for

body and brain, people can enhance their potential in physical, emotional, and cognitive abilities. As time goes on, humans will be offered even more ways to enhance their potential in unprecedented ways: cybernetic body parts,

memory‐enhancing or erasing drugs, technologically advanced sports equipment, and/or humans/computer interfaces,

etc. Will the definition of “human” change? Many ethical issues surround these advances: Should sports people be able to enhance their performances in any way they like? Should parents be able to choose IQ or mood boosters such as

drugs or brain implants for their children? What impacts might exist with the disparities between the “haves” and the

“have‐nots”? How far might the human brain and body be pushed? To what extent can we “perfect” the human body?

What “enhancers” do we have presently? What are the dangers, as well as benefits, of powerful new technologies that

might radically change the lives of human beings?

45

Practice Problem Topic

The Impact of Social Media

Suggested Readings

Barbera, Pablo & Metzger, Meagan. (2013, December 4). How Ukrainian protestors are using Twitter and Facebook.

The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/04/strategic-use-of-

facebook-and-twitter-in-ukrainian-protests/

Bowden, Tracy. (2014, March 26). Cyber-bullying: Industry against proposals to regulate social media networks. ABC

News (Australian Broadcasting Network). http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-26/industry-against-proposals-to-

regulate-social-media-networks/5347504

Giordano, Rita. (2014, March 17). N.J. schools to guide students on using social media. Philly.com.

http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-17/news/48269211_1_richard-guerry-social-media-college-students

Gross, Doug. (2014, January 30). 5 ways Facebook changed us, for better or worse. CNN.com.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/tech/social-media/facebook-changes/

Gross, Doug. (2014, March 25). Social media users migrating to smaller circles. CNN.com.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/tech/social-media/smaller-social-networks/index.html

Kalman, Jonathan. (2014, March 10). China to train leaders to manage public opinion. The Guardian.com.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/china-online-opinion-training-programme-sina-weibo

Kaste, Martin. (2014, February 28). As police monitor social media, legal lines become blurred. All Tech Considered.

NPR. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/28/284131881/as-police-monitor-social-media-legal-lines-

become-blurred

Singer, Natasha. (2013, March 9). They loved your G.P.A. then they saw your tweets. NYTimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/business/they-loved-your-gpa-then-they-saw-your-tweets.html?

Smith, Ned. (2013, April 26). How much is a Facebook friend worth? $174.17. Business News Daily.

http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/4402-value-facebook-friend-marketing.html

Somaiya, Ravi & Kaufman, Leslie. (2013, December 10). If a story is viral, truth may be taking a beating.

NYTimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/business/media/if-a-story-is-viral-truth-may-be-taking-a-

beating.html?

Tattersall, Nick & Coskun, Orhan. (2014, March 21). Furious reaction, political split after Turkey bans Twitter. Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/us-turkey-election-idUSBREA2K0NK20140321

Caution: We strongly advise coaches to screen all publications prior to making them accessible to

students.

46

Governor’s Cup District Topic

Processed Foods

Suggested Readings

Clarke, Toni & Krasny, Ros. (2013, November 7). FDA seeks to ban trans fats in processed foods due to health risks.

Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/us-usa-fda-transfat-idUSBRE9A60VN20131107

Engber, Daniel. (2014, January 1). The quest for a natural sugar substitute. NYTimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/magazine/the-quest-for-a-natural-sugar-substitute.html?

Gilliam, Carey & Baertlei, Lisa. (2014, April 16). Vermont Senate passes mandatory GMO food-labeling law. Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/16/usa-gmo-lawmaking-idUSL2N0N819I20140416

Hamblin, James. (2014, March 24). Science compared every diet and the winner is real food. The Atlantic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/

MacVean, Mary. (2013, December 10). Organic whole milk provides best heart-health benefits, study says. Los

Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/10/news/la-sn-organic-milk-20131210

Moss, Michael. (2013, February 20). The extraordinary science of addictive junk food. NYTimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?

Oliva, Amanda. (2012, August 13). “Natural” on food labels: what does it really mean? Examiner.com.

http://www.examiner.com/article/natural-on-food-labels-what-does-it-really-mean

Ortiz, Christina. (2014, February 19). Wait, there’s nanotechnology in my food? Popular Mechanics.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/wait-theres-nanotechnology-in-my-food-16510737

Powers, Sean. (2014, January 20). How food hubs are helping new farmers break into local food. NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/01/20/263510533/how-food-hubs-are-helping-new-farmers-break-into-local-

food

Steinhauer, Jennifer. (2014, March 8). Farm bill reflects shifting American menu and a senator’s persistent tilling.

NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/us/politics/farm-bill-reflects-shifting-american-menu-and-a-senators-

persistent-tilling.html?

Strom, Stephanie. (2012, July 7). Organic food purists worry about big companies’ influence. NYTimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worry-about-big-companies-influence.html?

Caution: We strongly advise coaches to screen all publications prior to making them accessible to

students.

47

Governor’s Cup Regional Topic

JR FPS-December Topic

Propaganda

Suggested Readings

Bagley, Katherine. (2012, March 15). Science educators troubled by Heartland’s climate curriculum and author’s

credentials. Reuters.com http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/idUS297741396920120315

Bohlenmarch, Celestine. (2014, March 10). Cold war media tactics fuel Ukraine crisis. NYTimes.com.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/world/europe/cold-war-media-tactics-fuel-ukraine-crisis.html?

Bulos, Nabih. (2013, August 2). Syria opens new front in social media war: Instagram. LA Times.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76881798/

Khan, Inam Ullah. (2013, December 2). Pakistanis fear cut in U.S.-funded radio could aid militants. UPI.com.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/12/02/Pakistanis-fear-cut-in-US-funded-radio-could-aid-

militants/71380510971221/

Liston, Barbara. (2013, April 18). Racist online forums linked to deadly U.S. hate crimes: rights group. Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/18/us-usa-crime-hatecrime-idUSBREA3H04T20140418

Neuhauser, Alan. (2014, April 8). Off the mark: Fox News coverage of climate science rarely accurate. US News and

World Report. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/04/08/off-the-mark-fox-news-coverage-of-

climate-science-rarely-accurate

Vanden Brook, Tom. (2013, December 4). Propaganda fails in Afghanistan, report says. USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/04/information-operations-propaganda-afghanistan-

pentagon/3870179/

Vanden Brook, Tom. (2013, Feb 2). Propaganda programs hard to justify, Pannetta says. USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/02/propaganda-programs-hard-to-justify-panetta-

says/1884705/

Williams, Carol J. (2014, April 11). Russia ends broadcasts by Voice of America 'propaganda' tool. LA Times.

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2014/apr/11/world/la-fg-wn-russia-voice-of-america-20140411

Yuhas, Alan. (2014, March 17). Russian propaganda over Crimea and the Ukraine: how does it work? The

Guardian.com. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/crimea-crisis-russia-propaganda-media

Caution: We strongly advise coaches to screen all publications prior to making them accessible to

students.

48

Governor’s Cup State Finals Topic

JR FPS State Finals Topic

Individual FPS State Finals Topic

Enhancing Human Potential – Affiliate Bowl

Suggested Readings

Anthony, Sebastian. (2013, April 1). What is transhumanism, or, what does it mean to be human? ExtremeTech http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152240-what-is-transhumanism-or-what-does-it-mean-to-be-human

BMJ-British Medical Journal. (2014, April 24). Store doping samples for 10 years to stop sports cheats, say anti-doping bodies. Science Daily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140424190514.htm

Georgia Institute of Technology. (2014, March 6). Robotic prosthesis turns drummer into a three-armed cyborg. Science Daily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095121.htm

Honigsbaum, Mark. (2013, June 15). The future of robotics: in a transhuman world, the disabled

will be the ones without prosthetic limbs. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/16/future-robotics-bionic-limbs-disabled

Lin, Patrick. (2012, February 16). More than human? The ethics of biologically enhancing soldiers. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/02/more-than-human-the-ethics-of-biologically-enhancing-

soldiers/253217/

Monks, Keiron. (2014, April 9). Forget wearable tech, embeddable implants are already here. CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/tech/forget-wearable-tech-embeddable-implants/

Naam, Ramez. (2013, April 25). Are bionic superhumans on the horizon? CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/24/opinion/bionic-superhumans-ramez-naam/

Silva, Jason. (2014, April 26). On Transhumanism and why technology is our silicon nervous system. Daily Beast. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/26/on-transhumanism-and-why-technology-is-our-silicon-nervous-

system.html.

Silver, Joe. (2014. March 28). Zurich 2016: First "Cybathlon" is fine with "technology doping". Ars Technica. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/swiss-labs-to-host-olympics-for-robot-assisted-athletes-in-2016/

Thompson, Helen. (2012, July 18). Performance enhancement: Superhuman athletes. Nature.com. http://www.nature.com/news/performance-enhancement-superhuman-athletes-1.11029

(2012, December 13). Human enhancement technologies alarming. Discovery News. http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/augmented-humans-121108.htm

Caution: We strongly advise coaches to screen all publications prior to making them accessible to

students.

49

FPS Rules for Competition

Future Problem Solving is a nationally recognized, award-winning program founded by the late Dr. E. Paul Torrance. The program seeks to increase awareness for the future and encourage creativity in students of all ages. The Kentucky Association for Academic Competition serves as the Affiliate Program for the International Future Problem Solving Program in Kentucky.

Designed as a year-long program, the Future Problem Solving Program (FPSP) focuses on research, problem solving, and communication skills. The program

requires investigation, ingenuity and creativity, as well as cooperative group work.

Problem solving teams need appropriate guidance by a knowledgeable coach. Because students are the beneficiaries of this program, KAAC requires that the FPS coach be trained in the FPS process. The team coach can be a teacher, aide, administrator, parent, or other interested adult.

Participation Requirements Three rules impact participation in the Future Problem Solving component of Governor’s Cup.

a. The school FPS coach must be certified before the FPS team can participate in District FPS

competition. If a school does not have a certified coach the team cannot participate in District

competition. The coach does not have to be present at the District competition, but must meet the certification requirement.

b. Each FPS team competing in District and Regional FPS competition must provide a certified evaluator. Additionally, in the Middle Grades and High School grade levels, each team must supply

one FPS evaluator for State Finals.

c. Those attending FPS certification must return their completed booklet for certification within 2 weeks (14 days) after their certification date. If they do not return their

booklet within that time frame, they must repeat their certification clinic. All 2+ Certifications will have the 2 week (14 days) to complete the online test.

d. No coach or immediate relative of an FPS team member may evaluate in his/her own

District competition. That person could, however, fulfill the participation requirement by evaluating in another District or grade level. In this scenario the coach or relative could “swap” with a coach

or evaluator from another District. e. Coaches or relatives may evaluate in Regional competition, because the booklets may be arranged so

that evaluators do not evaluate their own team. f. Schools within the same grade level may not share the same evaluator.

g. FPS proctors may NOT evaluate the FPS competition. If, before the awards ceremony, it is discovered

that an FPS proctor served as evaluator, the FPS team that evaluator represents is disqualified and the evaluator’s scores disregarded. Contest Managers or their designees must obtain KAAC approval

before such a disqualification is made. h. An FPS Team may not compete unless an adult accompanies the team to the competition.

i. If a school fails to supply a certified evaluator and a certified coach, the FPS team cannot participate in

the FPS component of Governor’s Cup. j. Certification sessions will be offered at KAAC Conference or at local sites throughout the state from

October through the first week of December. For those eligible for 2+ year certification, visit the searchable FPS certification database at www.kaac.com after you attend your session and successfully

take the online quiz for your FPS certification number. Your FPS certification number will be posted in the database upon receiving an 80% on the quiz.

k. All other coaches and evaluators must attend one of the FPS certification sessions offered either at the

KAAC Conference or throughout the state from October through the first week of December. A completed, scored booklet must be submitted within 14 days from the date of the certification session

or the session MUST be repeated. If you attend a session scheduled in early December, no booklets will be accepted after December 18th for certification. To check the status of your certification

number, visit www.kaac.com.

50

2. Overview of FPS Competition

In FPS, a four-person team participates in a six-step problem solving process to solve complex scientific and social problems of the future.

a. The steps involved in the Future Problem Solving Process are: o Research the topic

o Read the Future Scene and identify the charge of the team

Step 1. Identify Challenges and Concerns Step 2. Select an Underlying Problem

Step 3. Produce Solution Ideas Step 4. Generate and Select Criteria (for Solution Ideas)

Step 5. Apply Criteria to Solution Ideas

Step 6. Develop an Action Plan b. A practice problem is available upon request.

c. Bibliographic information, activities, and additional details of the program can be found in the FPS Manual.

d. A member school may involve several "teams" in the practice problem. Suggested procedures for using Practice Problems may be found in the FPS Manual.

e. A different problem is presented at each tier of the Governor’s Cup.

i. Situations are appropriate to each grade level. ii. Topic areas for District, Regional, and State Finals are announced, but the actual Future Scene

for each grade level is not released until the competition. iii. The 2014-2015 FPS topic areas for all three grade levels are:

Practice Problem Social Media District Processed Foods

Regional & JR Qualifier Propaganda State Finals & Individual FPS Enhancing Human Potential

International Conference To Be Announced in March

FPS Competition Format

a. Each member school may enter one team of four students in the FPS component of Governor’s Cup. i. Exactly four students must compete at all times.

ii. Even though the coaches signify on their Entry Form which students are to compete in FPS, substitutions are permitted prior to the start of any competition. No substitutions may be

made once the competition begins.

iii. As long as students do not surpass the three-event limit at all levels of Governor’s Cup combined, coaches are free to make any substitutions they like at Regional or State. The

same four students do not have to compete at each level. b. The exact starting time for District and Regional Future Problem Solving is not prescribed by KAAC,

but decided upon by the coaches attending the Competition Planning Meeting.

i. Unless ALL participating schools agree to come during the day, the competition must be held after school hours, allowing all teams reasonable time to travel.

ii. All FPS teams must compete at the same time. iii. At all levels, it may be possible to schedule FPS at the same time as composition. Refer to

your Governor’s Cup Coaches’ Manual. d. Several District sites, as well as grade levels, can be combined at one location and coordinated by one

individual. In this scenario of coordinating several Districts and grade levels, evaluators could be

exchanged or mixed as long as there are equal numbers of FPS teams competing. FPS coaches or relatives of team members could evaluate because they are assigned to another District.

e. FPS begins promptly at the local time agreed upon at the Competition Planning Meeting. When District or Regional competitions cross a time zone, the Central Time Zone will be used.

i. No student is admitted late to FPS, nor is a student dismissed early.

f. Substitutions are allowed between District and Regional competition in all grade levels, and between Regional and State Finals in the Middle Grades and High School grade levels.

51

g. Teams must write in pencil in the booklets provided. i. Teams may only write on the front of the pages of the competition booklet. No writing in the

margins will be scored. No additional pages may be used. (Scrap paper is provided)

ii. Teams may take an unopened package of Post-It™ notes (or similar product) into the room, and use them instead of scrap paper.

iii. If a team submits a booklet with cutting, pasting, or other alterations, that team is disqualified. Contest Managers or their designees must obtain KAAC approval before such a

disqualification is made.

iv. Research notes or any other notes are not allowed in the competition room. v. It is the Coach’s responsibility to make sure team members are well versed in Governor’s Cup

rules. Do not allow a misinformed proctor or other official to give your team advice that will jeopardize its eligibility.

vi. If a student competing in a Governor’s Cup event uses a cell phone or other electronic

communication device during FPS, the team booklet is disqualified. If a student’s device is put away, but creates a disturbance by ringing or vibrating, the device shall be confiscated

and returned to the student after the competition. h. If students identify themselves or their schools in their booklet, the individual’s team

booklet will be disqualified. Contest Managers or their designees must obtain KAAC approval before such a disqualification is made.

i. Teams in all grade levels may use a dictionary and/or thesaurus, book or electronic form, in the

competition. Electronic spell checking devices are not permitted. i. Participating teams/schools provide their own dictionaries and/or thesauri. Such devices must

be non-programmable and may not be of the type in which users can input and store information. Combination encyclopedia/dictionaries are prohibited.

ii. Teams may not share a dictionary and/or thesaurus.

iii. The host school is not required to provide dictionaries and/or thesauri. j. Calculators are permitted in Future Problem Solving.

i. Participating teams/schools provide their own calculators. ii. A calculator may not be shared among teams.

iii. The host school is not required to provide calculators. iv. Programmable calculators, or those that can store information, may not be used.

k. All Elementary grade level teams receive the same predetermined Future Scene.

i. The team has 90 minutes to complete the six steps in the FPS process. ii. A booklet identifying each step in the problem solving process is provided.

l. In the Middle Grades and High School grade levels, while the topics are the same, each grade level receives a unique Future Scene.

i. The team has two hours to complete the six steps in the FPS process.

ii. A booklet identifying each step in the problem solving process is provided. m. Number, rather than name, identifies teams.

i. At registration, each team receives a card bearing a code number corresponding to the code on the FPS sign-in form.

ii. The team writes the code number on the first page of the booklet ONLY.

iii. Following evaluation, the code number on the booklet is matched to the team name. n. To allow teams to prepare for the Regional and State Finals competitions, the Contest Manager or FPS

Coordinator returns all FPS scoresheets to the respective teams, and identifies the teams advancing to the Regional or State Finals competition the Monday following the originally scheduled District or

Regional Governor’s Cup Awards Ceremony. The teams are told whether or not they are advancing, not the exact order of finish. Exact order of finish is not announced until the FPS awards are

presented at each respective awards ceremony.

o. KAAC encourages host schools to place FPS teams in one large competition room, rather than in separate rooms.

Evaluation

Evaluation is written feedback and scoring that helps coaches and students improve their skills as problem

solvers.

52

Guidelines for Scheduling Evaluation

a. KAAC does not impose a set time for evaluation. The Contest Manager sets evaluation times in

consultation with evaluators at times that are reasonably convenient for both parties.

b. If the same person is designated to evaluate FPS is to serve also as Composition reader, that person is prohibited from scoring both events in the same day at District and Regional. At the State Finals,

the same person may NOT score FPS and Composition. c. FPS evaluation MUST be completed by noon on Saturday.

d. The number of evaluators used must always equal the number of FPS teams participating.

e. Not all evaluators need to be present at the same time, but evaluation should be completed in a continuous sitting for the respective evaluator.

f. Booklets must be evaluated on-site or a site determined and overseen by the FPS Coordinator. g. It is against KAAC rules for FPS evaluators or Composition readers to take booklets off-site to score

without express permission from KAAC. If they do so, both the host school and those

evaluators/readers are subject to disciplinary action from KAAC. KAAC’s disciplinary action could include, but is not limited to, suspending that evaluator/reader from future service and/or placing the

host school on probation. Evaluation—Process and Results

h. The FPS Coordinator or the Contest Manager must check and sign the scoresheet before it is considered valid.

i. If an evaluator serves for two different grade levels, the evaluator could read two sets of booklets in a

combined District competition. j. Each step of the FPS process is evaluated and receives a numerical score.

i. Each evaluator then ranks their respective sample of booklets based on the numerical scores awarded.

ii. The booklet receiving the highest total numerical score is ranked one; the booklet receiving the

next highest score is ranked two; etc. iii. The ranks of each judge are combined to determine the order of finish. The lowest composite

rank places first; the next lowest rank places second, etc. iv. ASAP (the scoring program) has been designed to modify an outlying score, which may

negatively affect the team’s ranking that is not consistent with other evaluator rankings. k. If the composite ranks of booklets are tied, ties are broken by employing judges’ preference by ASAP.

l. There is no inquiry procedure in FPS competition. If a coach feels than an evaluator shows significant

errors in evaluation, the coach may request that the booklet and evaluation scoresheet be examined by KAAC. Should KAAC agree, the evaluator will undergo remediation before FPS certification may be

renewed. m. The FPS Coordinator and head scorer, or other individual designated at the Competition Planning

Meeting, examines FPS scoresheets to verify team codes, points awarded, and ranking.

n. A renewed effort must be made to correct mathematical errors on FPS scoresheets. The FPS and Composition Coordinator should be certified in FPS and knowledgeable about FPS scoring. The person

must check the FPS scoresheets for mathematical mistakes using the directives found in the Coordinator’s Guide. If a certified FPS person is not available to serve as the Coordinator, either the

Head Scorer, Chief Official, or a certified FPS coach chosen by the coaches at the Competition

Planning Meeting will check the scoresheets for errors. Whenever two or more people are involved in error-checking, they must be from different schools.

5. Recognition and Advancement

In District competition the top two teams in all grade levels receive medals and advance to Regional competition. a. At the Regional competition, the top four Regional FPS teams in all grade levels receive medals. The top two

Regional FPS teams in the Middle Grades and High School grade levels advance to the State Finals.

b. At the State Finals, the top 10 teams in both the Middle Grades and High School grade levels are recognized and receive awards.

c. School points are awarded based on the order of finish. d. Kentucky’s Middle Grades and High School Governor’s Cup teams advancing to the International Future Problem

Solving Conference (IC), a competition involving FPS affiliate program champions from the United States and

several foreign countries, will be based on the total number of participating teams from each affiliate program.

53

Calendar and Deadlines for Governor’s Cup & FPS

Component Events If you disregard these deadlines, you may make your team ineligible for some or all Governor’s Cup events.

Elementary Governor's Cup ASAP Online Student Entry Period – Dec. 12 to Feb. 12 Deadline for Sending FPS Booklets to KAAC to Request Official or Coach Certification Numbers – Dec. 17 Deadline for Entering Student Names Online - Thursday, February 12 Deadline to for District Host to receive District Entry Form – February 12 District--Coaches' Planning Meeting - Thursday, February 19 District--Future Problem Solving and Composition - Tuesday, February 24 District--Assessment, Quick Recall, Awards - Saturday, February 28 Deadline for Confirming Students for Regional Online - Midnight Wed., March 4 Regional--Coaches' Planning Meeting - Thursday, March 12 Regional--Future Problem Solving and Composition - Tuesday, March 17 Regional-- Assessment, Quick Recall, Awards - Saturday, March 21 Middle Grades Governor's Cup ASAP Online Student Entry Period – Dec. 12 to Jan. 7 Deadline for Sending FPS Booklets to KAAC to Request Official or Coach Certification Numbers – Dec.17 Deadline for Entering Student Names Online - Wednesday, January 7 Deadline to for District Host to receive District Entry Form – Thursday, January 8 District--Coaches' Planning Meeting - Thursday, January 8 District--Future Problem Solving and Composition - Tuesday, January 13 District--Assessment, Quick Recall, Awards - Saturday, January 17 Deadline for Confirming Students for Regional Online - Midnight Wed., Jan. 21 Regional--Coaches' Planning Meeting - Thursday, January 22 Regional--Future Problem Solving & Composition - Tuesday, January 27 Regional--Assessment, Quick Recall, Awards - Saturday, January 31 Deadline for Confirming Students for State Online - Midnight Wed., Feb. 18 Governor's Cup State Finals- March 14-16, Galt House, Louisville High School Governor's Cup ASAP Online Student Entry Period – Dec. 12 to Jan.7 Deadline for Sending FPS Booklets to KAAC to Request Official or Coach Certification Numbers – Dec. 17 Deadline for Entering Student Names Online - Wednesday, January 7 Deadline to for District Host to receive District Entry Form – Thursday, January 8 District--Coaches' Planning Meeting - Thursday, January 15 District--Future Problem Solving and Composition - Tuesday, January 20 District--Assessment, Quick Recall, Awards - Saturday, January 24 Deadline for Confirming Students for Regional Online - Midnight Wed., January 28 Regional--Coaches' Planning Meeting - Thursday, February 5 Regional--Future Problem Solving & Composition - Tuesday, February 10 Regional--Assessment, Quick Recall, Awards - Saturday, February 14 Deadline for Confirming Students for State Online - Midnight Wed., Feb. 18 Governor's Cup State Finals - March 14-16, Galt House, Louisville Other KAAC FPS Component Events Deadline to Register for FPS Junior Division – Friday, November 7, 2014 Qualifier for FPS Junior Division- Thursday, December 11, 2014

Deadline for Intent to Submit and to Register CmPS Teams and Individuals- Wednesday, December 17, 2014 Deadline to Register for Scenario Writing and Scenario Performance – Thursday, January 16, 2015 Deadline for Scenario Submissions at KAAC office- Friday, January 16, 2015 Deadline for Progress Reports CmPS Teams and Individuals- Friday, January 23, 2015 Deadline for Scenario Performance to KAAC Office- Friday, February 2, 2015 Deadline for Final CmPS Projects to KAAC office- Monday, March 2, 2015 State Participants in Junior FPS- Saturday, March 14, 2015, Galt House, Louisville CmPS and Scenario Performance Projects Presented at State- Sunday, March 15, 2015, Galt House, Louisville Junior Division FPS Awards, Scenario Writing Awards, Scenario Performance Awards, CmPS Awards Presented at State – Monday, March 16, 2015, Galt House, Louisville