Students

= Students' Page = // Congratulations on making it to the National Finals - you have all done a fantastic job! //

Feel free to use the discussion tags above to talk to each other or ask Julie and Robyn a question.

On this page you will find: Feel free to use the discussion page on the menu bar to introduce yourselves and chat about the finals. New Here's some feedback from the QP evaluators to help you. You can download it or read it here. I strongly advise you to take this on board!! ** Feedback and Advice from the Evaluators ** The first part of this is excerpted from the discussion that the evaluators had online when they were marking your QP booklets. Remember that you were the best of the best so it’s unlikely that your booklets were the ones being discussed here, however there’s lots of really good advice to help you progress to the next level.
 * The topic descriptor for the Finals Topic of Genetic Testing - don't get confused, it is not Genetic Modification or Genetic Engineering.
 * Adventures in Auckland for your free afternoon
 * Links to websites. movies,etc to help with your research - if you know how to use a wiki you can upload any interesting research you find, otherwise .email the link to me - rboswell@igrin.co.nz and I'll put it up for you.

** QP Booklets Feedback: **


 * It's pretty tough for young people to work together (in a team) and produce a solid piece of written work in 2 hours that essentially requires them to think on the spot (i.e. even with research, they need to synthesise their own new ideas and make their own decisions about the UP, Best Solution etc). Sure, there's a bit of memorisation and a lot of repetition of concepts, but at the end of the day we shouldn't lose sight that these students are relatively young and are having to produce a pretty extensive piece of work that they have come up with themselves and without any assistance from their usual sources of assistance (i.e. teachers, friends).


 * In the solutions, "A ‘who’ counts only the first time it is used - e.g. if a team continually says 'The government will ... ' only count it as a ‘who’ the first time it is used."


 * One thing that I noticed while marking my middles was a decided lack of research. While they were using appropriate terminology, I think that at this level they should be starting to mention specific research, if not citing it. Only one of my teams had any evidence of research or strong scientific knowledge. //(Note from Robyn – solutions need to be scientifically possible – if you aren’t sure, go for another solution)//


 * I'm glad to hear you say that because some people believe that you can do FPS without researching. With my JBs it was very obvious that two teams had done some excellent research and they turned out to be my top two teams.


 * I think that sometimes coaches and teams get so hung up on the process that they forget the really interesting parts of FPS, especially creative and futuristic thinking – that has been lacking in general this year.


 * My senior booklets were all well researched. In fact, I have given out the highest Research scores for this problem that I have ever given out - and not just for one of the booklets. I noticed a lot of teams had done obvious research e.g. quoting random trivial facts. The better teams however incorporated their knowledge into their ideas, especially the solutions: for example mentioning LifeStraws as a potential aspect of one of their solutions or referring to different types of water filters being developed for third world countries using simple, low-cost materials e.g. sand, rice husk ash. I prefer this sort of evidence of research to direct anecdotes or even direct quotes (unless the quote is particularly pertinent to that challenge/solution). //(Note from Robyn – if you are using products, systems etc that already exist, they are not true FPS solutions – personally I give a ‘W” for already existing solutions so they don’t score, but if you adapt and modify existing ideas, then you are more likely to get futuristic, creative solutions. You should, however acknowledge where your ideas have come from – e.g. ‘…such as the Lifestraws developed in…. by the …..Corporation. Evaluators can’t do all of the same research as you and it’s very frustrating as an evaluator when a) you mark something as original and discover later that the team has ‘ripped off’ the idea or you say ‘this wouldn’t work’ and find out later it has actually been tried out.)//


 * I've had the problem this round, and in previous ones, with research just tacked on, not necessarily relevant to the specific problem/challenge. I generally try to give credit for the research, but point out to teams that its important that research adds actual value, otherwise it can detract. //(Note from Robyn – The future scene focuses on some, but not all of the issues around the topic. You may have researched some other aspects, but don’t try to second-guess the fs writers. If you have learned some research that isn’t relevant, don’t use it – that’s part of learning to be successful in FPS. Also, don’t make up websites. We will have a computer on hand to check. In the QP some people referenced research from websites and when the evaluators checked up, they couldn’t find the websites – if this happens, you could get a very low research mark.)//


 * My booklets all had pretty good skills but are still struggling with solutions that actually solve their UP. I think that some teams come to their booklets with pre-prepared solutions and try to fit them in rather than responding spontaneously to the future scene. When I coached I never got my kids to come up with possible solutions or even UPs in advance - spent more time teaching them good thinking skills. I think that sometimes there's a danger in doing a practice future scene as younger teams focus on what they've come up with for that. //(Note from Robyn – preprepared UPs and solutions are pretty obvious and they do annoy evaluators…so be careful and make sure you are spontaneous in your responses to the future scene rather than coming along with solutions or UPs already prepared.)//


 * Something I’ve started to notice is that more often than not, the team’s action plan is based on one of their later solutions which, despite being strong are often duplicates of earlier (and usually weaker) concepts so cant score above two for relevance, impact and effectiveness. Have teams been told to list their weaker solutions first and keep the best til last?

** Feedback and advice especially for National Finals Teams: **


 * Make sure you know what a restatement is and how to avoid it! (see below)


 * Please please please – I cannot stress this enough; this is so important - make sure solutions actually solve the UP. My team used to write out the KVP and Purpose on scrap paper 4 times (one copy for each person) and then we’d brainstorm and write our solutions based off of that. It's a waste of 20 minutes to churn out a whole bunch of solutions that don't solve the UP, or only solve the KVP and not the Purpose and vice versa.

Also, if teams are going to include research they need to make sure it is relevant! I had lots of teams who obviously went back through their challenges/solutions and just added an extra sentence to every couple, regardless of whether the research had anything to do with that particular one.
 * I agree - solving both parts of the UP was a huge issue for a lot of teams.


 * Finally, communication skills. Spelling can be overlooked on some occasions, but some teams really need to reread their work to make sure that their writing makes sense. //(Note from Robyn – Whilst we don’t mark you down for bad spelling or untidy writing, if the spelling is so bad it can’t be read, the handwriting can’t be read, or the grammar doesn’t make sense, the evaluator will not score that challenge, solution, etc. The rule for evaluators is that you can’t read between the lines or if there’s an error or omission you have to mark as it is written.)//

e.g. With the Delta’s fish reeking of oil, it may not be able to be sold leading to the GDP of Nigeria decreasing. With this, the country may become unstable and be taken over by neighbouring nations which they could easily do as the Nigerians are now weak and malnourished (I actually got a couple of challenges like this from several teams) There are three challenges here, crammed into one. Economics, good. Physical health/basic needs, good. Defence, way off topic. Why turn down two Y's and P in exchange for a W. Keep it simple.
 * When a team comes up with a challenge, keep it simple. Don’t take the consequences too far. //(Note from Robyn – widespread riots are not unheard of but they are rare, worldwide consequences are unlikely unless the future scene has a worldwide focus and ‘everybody will die’ hasn’t happened yet and is a HIGHLY unlikely consequence of a challenge)//


 * If teams are going to do research, scientific principles and the correct application of the terms is appreciated and shows that teams have done good research and can apply it (correctly).

Please. Use your imagination. 90% of the water quality solutions I saw could have been used several decades ago (and clearly they weren’t).


 * I just also want to add that the importance of a correctly worded UP cannot be overstated as it affects the rest of the booklet. (I will, however, concede that coming up with a good UP is easier said than done!) Some of my teams would have scored so much higher if they had simply focused on a key UNDERLYING ISSUE in the FS.


 * __ An IMPORTANT note about Restatements: __**

A lot of very good teams missed out on the National Finals because their UPs were restatements. This means that they score 1-1 for Adequacy and Focus and it is impossible to overcome that to score highly enough to get through. A team with a restatement at the Finals will not make it to the last round so it’s really important you think about this – don’t panic about it, just be aware and think about it as you write up your UP.

The reason behind the concern about restatements is that, unfortunately, a few years back, some coaches who only saw FPS as a competition, started to teach their teams how to deliberately write a restatement for their UP. This makes it possible to ‘can’ your booklet, which means that you prepare and learn the solutions off by heart. This is obvious to the evaluators, but it was a loophole in the scoring that needed to be sorted out. It’s also why an evaluator will be tough on the solutions when a booklet has a restatement.


 * How do you know you’ve got a restatement?**

One clue is if you have simply restated the task at the end of the future scene, so in the case of the Water Quality Future Scene, the task was: Please consider the problems surrounding water quality in the Niger Delta.

A clue for the evaluators was if the team mentioned the Niger Delta or just the river, for example. The river only covered some of the water quality issues whilst the delta covered all of them.

Another type of restatement in some future scenes is one that is so generic that it could have been written without reading the future scene and the team has just tacked on the future scene parameters. Eg ‘HMW improve the water quality in…(insert place)….so that people have clean drinking water in ….and beyond?’.

What an evaluator looks for is whether or not the UP solves all the major issues in the future scene. If it does, it is a restatement. For the QP, for example, the main water quality issues were – the river, the leaking oil pipes, the reservoir and the desalination plant, the fertilisers polluting the water, the impact on the eco-system, providing potable water supplies and oil drilling. When I came across a possible restatement I would check it off against these, and if it solved all of them, then it was definitely a restatement. However, there can be a fine line between a restatement and a very good UP so evaluators are not allowed to call a restatement without discussing it with other evaluators so there are some interesting discussions on our evaluators’ forum.

It is extremely frustrating as an evaluator to come across a terrific booklet that has to be scored low because it has a restatement!

Here are some actual restatements from the QP booklets – compare them with your booklets to see if you can see the difference:

‘Because of the poor water quality in the Niger Delta region HMW clean the pollution in the country so that the people receive potable water for their basic needs in the year 2030 and beyond?’

‘Because we know that the Niger Delta is one of the most polluted water supplies in the world, HMW improve the quality of the water so that the people who access this water supply live better lives in the year 2030 and beyond’

‘Because the rivers are choked with oil pollution, HMW reduce the pollution so that water quality is higher in 2030, in the Niger Delta and beyond?’

‘Because the Niger Delta had one of the most polluted water supplies in the world and now in 2030 despite calls for action, the situation has worsened. HMW improve the water quality so that the residents of the Niger Delta have better access to potable water in 2030?’ __** Download this as a pdf file here: **__

Genetic Testing
Scientists are currently looking into the genetic testing of humans so that we will know if we are genetically prone to obesity, smoking, violence, etc. Examples: If health insurance companies know that you will become obese and need lots of treatment they will charge you more (even if you found this out and have started eating better, etc.) If you are prone to violence, you may be monitored. Both of these are examples are scary to think about, but the even scarier thought is that these situations are starting to occur.

Auckland Adventures:
On Saturday afternoon you get to spend the afternoon out and about exploring Auckland. The activities on this list are so exciting I feel like running away from the evaluators and joining you

** Feedback from the Evaluators: **
The evaluators have their own private wiki where they discuss the evaluations for each of your booklets. Here's their 'raw' discussion for the QP booklets. Whilst these relate to all of the teams and you are obviously better than most of them, there are some important messages for you here as you will see common threads running through their discussion. Use this information wisely as you prepare for the finals! Most of these evaluators are ex-FPSers so they know what they are talking about!

** A link to help you with your research (check back and I'll add some more) **:
Titanpad of Genetic Testing links