1.
determine whether you can
distinguish between environmental advocacy and environmental education
2.
develop heuristics to get at
the intent or purpose of the developer (For example, can you use reverse
engineering to identify intent?)
3.
develop a set of criteria for
assessing the quality of environmental resources
4.
decide what constitutes the
effective use of environmental resources in education. (For example, can certain sources be quoted
with authority? Or should certain sources be accepted as guides for social
action? What provisos should be
attached to usage?)
5.
Create a series of guidelines
for the effective use of environmental resources in education
Provides the steps of the Creative Problem Solving model developed by Alex Osborn (“the father of brainstorming”) and his associate Sidney Parnes.
“The model is
usually presented as five steps, but sometimes a preliminary step is added
called mess-finding which involves locating a challenge or problem to
which to apply the model.
The total six stages are:
1. Mess-finding (Objective Finding)
2. Fact-finding
3. Problem-Finding
4. Idea-finding
5. Solution finding (Idea evaluation)
6. Acceptance-finding (Idea implementation) “
Our group would like your help in developing a strategy for determining the intent or agenda behind a web site using the steps outlined in the CPS. We hope a “creative” approach to the question of “What does the webmaster have to gain from my hit?” will lead to strategies we might share with educators interested in “reverse engineering” web sites to get at the purpose or agenda of those responsible for the site.
The following table is also taken from CPS Model
|
Objective |
Fact |
Problem |
Idea |
Solution |
Acceptance |
|
Identify Goal, Wish, Challenge |
Gather Data |
Clarify the Problem |
Generate Ideas |
Select & Strengthen Solutions |
Plan for Action |
|
What is the goal, wish, or challenge upon which you want to work? |
What’s the situation or background? What are all the facts, questions, data, feelings that are involved? |
What is the problem that really needs to be focuses on? What is the concern that really needs to be addressed? |
What are all the possible solutions for how to solve the problem? |
How can you strengthen the solution? How can you select the solutions to know which one will work best? |
What are all the action steps that need to take place in order to implement your solution? |
“The steps guide the creative process. They tell you what to do at each immediate step in order to eventually produce one or more creative, workable solutions. A unique feature is that each step first involves a Divergent thinking phase in which one generates lots of ideas (facts, problem definitions, ideas, evaluation criteria, implementation strategies), and then a convergent phase in which only the most promising ideas are selected for further exploration.” CPS Model
1. Objective
Finding: How do we determine the agenda of a site?
The inclusion of an abstract and/or statements of intent,
purpose and scope, as well as disclosure statements help the user to determine
the purpose or raison d’être of a web site.
In a perfect world, the intentions of webmasters would be transparent and there
would be no hidden agendas. Of course this is not the case. We can’t always
take what we see on the ‘net at face value.
2. Fact Finding:
What clues can I see that tip me off to the intent of the site?
There are lots of clues regarding intent. For instance, one
might consider the top-level domain of the site. Is it a .com, .org, or .edu?
Although this is no guarantee of the value of information, or “noble
intentions” of those responsible for the site, it is a place to start. While
.edu domains are restricted to educational institutions [I believe], anyone can
purchase a .com or .org domain name and post whatever content they wish.
3. Problem
Finding: What is the best way to judge the agenda or intent of a web site? How
concerned do I need to be about this?
We need to understand bias so that we can make relatively
informed guesses as to the intent of the author(s). Maybe we’d like to be able
to identify bias in web sites so that we could research contentious issues from
both (all?) sides. This is an extremely important part of the process, as the
model states what “really” is the problem?
4. Generate
Ideas: What other clues regarding intent exist?
Brainstorming
on the topic opens up the process to as many solutions as possible. In fact
this is where the true strength – the “creative” part – of this model comes
into play.
All ideas, no matter how “off the wall” they might seem, are
taken under consideration. In fact, the brainstorming link cited above contains
the following definition: “The basis of
brainstorming is a generating ideas in a group situation based on the principle
of suspending judgment.” The concept here is that “wild ideas” may spur contributions
from other group members.
5. Select and
Strengthen Solutions: Are some clues more valid than others?
The judgment and values of the group determine which
“brainstorms” aren’t feasible. The focus narrows and theories and strategies
are tested. For instance, it may be determined that the top-level domain of a
site has relatively little relevance to the intent or agenda of the site.
6. Plan for
Action: Do we have a strategy for assaying the intent of web sites? What
lessons have we learned that we can pass on to students?
Another CPS page:
http://www.prm.nau.edu/prm426/creative_manager_lesson.htm