Mentors on the team [Archive]

V_Chip

12-02-2012, 19:14

FIRST is not all about the students. It's also not all about the mentors. On a successful FIRST team, both students and mentors work together, side by side, 50-50. The point of FIRST is to teach students about STEM, and spread STEM awareness. This is not possible without the work of mentors and engineers working with the students.

In the scenario where the mentors do more than the students, the students will not learn as much as they should. In the scenario where the students do more than the mentors, the students won't learn any of the knowledge the mentors have to offer them.

In conclusion, mentors are part of FIRST to teach STEM. Without them, this whole operation would not be possible. Yet, they do need to be limited. Not too much, not too little.

Agreed. This is how our team works, and why we have a 1:1 ratio of students to mentors. It's been working for 16-17 years.

I recognize that our team was referenced in the thread that was closed yesterday. No team wishes to be criticized, but sadly it happens from time to time. Lack of comprehension may cause conflict or an unwanted opinion. I do not wish to bash "nileshp87" but would instead offer him/her the chance to visit our facilities and see how we work.

EricH

12-02-2012, 19:36

Whatever the role is that leads to maximum inspiration. That's the role that the mentors and the students both need to play. It's also something that needs to be decided team by team and maybe even year by year within a team.

On a semi-related note, I asked the following question at a Kitbot build day for rookies (the mechanical and electrical groups were waiting on the programmers, for once):

What is the maximum amount of mentor involvement allowed in a robot build, by percentage?

After I heard the correct answer*, I explained to the rookies why that's the right answer, and that they would see teams that they might think were mentor-built. Not only was that not a problem, but that it might be beneficial to go and hang out with those teams for a bit, and learn from them. I think part of the role for the teams with a higher percentages of mentors is to share those mentors with teams that need help, trying to improve the inspiration on those teams, if those teams need the help.

100%

Cem8301

12-02-2012, 19:38

We have a coach but he rarely is present at the meetings. I am the student president on my team.. and pretty much run everything from team organization, to setting meeting times, to teaching students, to buying things, to raising money, to keeping track of the budget, to managing outreach etc. It is a little overwhelming. I have teammates that help me take care of some of these things, but I still have to keep it all in check. I have learned a lot about management, but have had to figure most of it out by trial and error.

During this build season we have piqued interest of a few parents who have been a big help answering technical questions and building our practice field.. but other than that we do everything ourselves. I think we are doing alright, but it has been a much slower process than it could have been.

wireties

12-02-2012, 19:49

Our ratio of mentors to students is about 1:10 and this is our best year in that regard! Last year it was just me and 2 dedicated teachers.

We leave all decisions up to the students but use persistent socratic queries when we are in significant disagreement. Over time, the mentors advice has saved the student's efforts often enough that they respect our input. Just as often students come up with innovative ideas that never crossed our minds. The synergy is good - our mentors have awesome relationships with the students on this basis.

That being said, there are some areas that must be monitored for the year-to-year survival of the team. For example, I like to review all drawings that go to our wonderful sheet metal fab sponsors. We can't be sending things out for fab that do not make sense, that are too expensive to build, that are not correct (as far as we know), that are not modeled, etc - really anything that is not totally respectful of the sponsorship. And the teachers must make sure monies are handled properly and school-related rules followed (our teachers do much more than this though!).

Ideally we'll have a 1:1 mentor:student ratio some day, that would be nice. I know my wife would appreciate it!

wireties

12-02-2012, 19:53

I recognize that our team was referenced in the thread that was closed yesterday.

I, for one, would not associate the actions of a single student with the awesomeness that is FIRST Team 175. Do not worry!

efoote868

12-02-2012, 20:22

Having been the lead programmer on a student driven team, as a mentor now I try to be as hands off as possible.

I haven't wrote a piece of code for FIRST robotics since 2008, and I don't intend to anytime soon. My role on the team is now more of a consultant, and I want to keep in that way. As a mentor, I've been much more flexible to interface with underclassmen, those that aren't the lead programmers. I'm also able to talk with the mechanical team, to make sure that they're thinking about sensors and wiring considerations.

This weekend was the most I've been involved with the robot itself, I helped the lead programmers with a bit of control theory. In about an hour and a half, I helped them solve a problem they spent several days on. I feel this is my position as a mentor, to facilitate learning and to act as a guide when the students are having trouble.

I understand that this is a hot button issue, but only when you lose sight of FIRST's goals. Sure, the competition is fun and the robots are great, and everyone wants to do well. But in the end, it doesn't matter if your robot makes it onto Einstein or if you make a bar-stool on wheels, as long as students learned something.

Richard Wallace

12-02-2012, 20:54

I keep coming back to FIRST year after year, because the people inspire me.

Years ago in a thread like this one, I posted (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=533020&postcount=37) about a team at the St. Louis regional that inspired me -- FRC 71, Team Hammond.

Dkt01

12-02-2012, 21:22

My view, having been both a student and a mentor, is that the mentor's role is always changing; sometimes they teach by doing something and explaining the process to students, but many times they should be consultants.
My high school team had a policy that outlined a learning/teaching process: the mentors would first show how to do something, then they should have the student help, then they would assist the student, and finally, the student would work independently with the mentor as a supervisor and consultant. This process was very useful because everyone learned how to build, program, or whatever they wanted to do. Furthermore, veteran members had the independence to build and have pride in "this is our robot". Our team never did the best at competition, and we learned through many, many mistakes, but we loved that we got to build whatever robot we wanted. Design was always done by students, with mentors only answering student questions and pointing out potential flaws.
The team that I help now is focused on a student-designed, student-built robot. We mentors only provide technical instruction and assistance. I think it's really rewarding to see the students take the skills they are taught and build something that they can be proud of. There are many times that I could do something better or faster than the students because I have more experience, but then I realize that I would not have learned had I not been given the opportunity to work at my own learning pace when I was a student.
Just my two cents, but I don't think there is a time for mentors to build the robot.

SousVide

12-02-2012, 21:26

Here here... I agree and I believe this is the true spirit of mentorship anywhere, not just at FIRST.

My view, having been both a student and a mentor, is that the mentor's role is always changing; sometimes they teach by doing something and explaining the process to students, but many times they should be consultants.
My high school team had a policy that outlined a learning/teaching process: the mentors would first show how to do something, then they should have the student help, then they would assist the student, and finally, the student would work independently with the mentor as a supervisor and consultant. This process was very useful because everyone learned how to build, program, or whatever they wanted to do. Furthermore, veteran members had the independence to build and have pride in "this is our robot". Our team never did the best at competition, and we learned through many, many mistakes, but we loved that we got to build whatever robot we wanted. Design was always done by students, with mentors only answering student questions and pointing out potential flaws.
The team that I help now is focused on a student-designed, student-built robot. We mentors only provide technical instruction and assistance. I think it's really rewarding to see the students take the skills they are taught and build something that they can be proud of. There are many times that I could do something better or faster than the students because I have more experience, but then I realize that I would not have learned had I not been given the opportunity to work at my own learning pace when I was a student.
Just my two cents, but I don't think there is a time for mentors to build the robot.

Basel A

12-02-2012, 21:37

The following passage has been quoted time and time again in threads such as this, but for those that haven't read it, I think it is necessary posting.

Portions of Speech by Dean Kamen
1998 FIRST Competition Kickoff Workshop, January 10, 1998
The Center for New Hampshire, Manchester, NH
[imperfectly transcribed from a videotape]
copyright 1998 PNHS and GMPT

I don’t know how many ways to try and continue to say it. . . What this organization is about is not education per se. I heard a lot of people, even last night, and I think they mean well, and I understand what you’re saying, there needs to be a balance, but I heard people saying "well sure that other team did great, but thats because the engineers did all the work. The kids didn’t build the robot." I have to tell you, FIRST is not an educational institution. It's okay if the kids build the whole robot, it's okay if they don’t touch it. FIRST ought to be to education what the NFL or the World Series is to little league.

Just do the mental experiment in which there is no professional football, there is no little league. Do you think that little kids at the age of six, seven, and eight are going to get up and spend hours exercising, striving to get better and better at what would become a cardiovascular exercise running up and down a field? Imagine how many kids would spend those kinds of hours practicing basketball if there was no Michael Jordan.

The harsh reality is this country doesn’t have an NCAA of smarts or Olympic Committee of brains. We don’t have people as well known as Michael Jordan doing little things like inventing CAT scanners, curing diseases, putting a man on the moon. You and your companies are those people.

Emphasis mine. Because the goal of FIRST is to spread awareness of STEM and to inspire more students to pursue STEM education, the amount of mentor involvement on a team does not matter as long as those goals are being met.

ianonavy

12-02-2012, 21:48

I think it's pretty clear what FIRST is about. It is For the Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.

At the end of the day, it should come to this: were the students successfully INSPIRED by their mentors to do the best they could to use science and technology to solve the problem of the FIRST Robotics Competition and win? That can't happen if mentors do all the thinking while students do menial tasks like organize screws and drill holes.

Recognition comes from promoting science and technology, and allowing it to be recognized in school communities, and everywhere it can be heard. That comes from individual teams reaching out to show just how cool robots can really be, and to get people truly excited and passionate about robotics and engineering.

Koko Ed

12-02-2012, 21:50

mrnoble

12-02-2012, 22:07

I have coached the same team since 2003. Some years, I reacted against seeing teams with limited student buy-in and erred toward the student-led model. Some years, I reacted against poor organization and outcome and erred toward mentor-led. I've been part of teams where student leaders did stupid things that cost team unity, safety, and a competitive robot. I've been part of teams where over-controlling adults did the same things. We currently have a mission statement that makes it clear what our expectations and goals are for both students and adults, and which usually helps cut off problems before they happen.

Currently I think that if, for example, I can provide the students with something valuable to do for the team by giving them a CAD/CAM part to work with, I'll do it as long as it fits their vision and as long as at least one student is involved in the process enough to learn how it works, in hopes that they will be the ones who do the same thing next year.

It really is a difficult balancing act to reign in my own ideas and passions without allowing students to set themselves up for a poor season through lack of experience and foresight. I've certainly learned not to judge other teams as harshly as I did eight years ago. I hope I'm a better coach and mentor than I used to be, and that all the students I teach come away from the season feeling successful and proud of their work. I hope that students who were already passionate about an engineering future aren't discouraged, and that students who never considered such an idea before their FIRST experience are coming away inspired. If I'm helping to facilitate these things, then maybe I'm fulfilling my role as an adult on the team.

SousVide

12-02-2012, 22:09

no disrespect intented.

But That can't be still correct today, could it?..... Look at what he did right after that...

FLL was started....

FLL, where one of the most fundamental Core Values is for students to do *all* of the work. Not some, not whatever you can do and I will help you with the rest - *all* of it. They are also judged upon it and judged lower during the competition if they do not or cannot represent their own work.

FLL is part of FIRST...

our own FRC mentoring guideline documents - the most recent one this year continues to show the values of having the student do the work - as much work as they are capable - with mentors standing by and encouraging...

Yeah sure, if a student doesn't understand how to use a powersaw - don't just randomly arm them with one. At the end of the day, what is quoted might be what is meant then, but I cannot understand how it could be true today. It defeats the purpose of having the students *do*...

Hanging out is terrific - maybe it will even keep them out of trouble. Doing what is described in the quote is like inviting a bunch of people to a buffet and *not letting them eat*... that's just not right. :yikes:

The following passage has been quoted time and time again in threads such as this, but for those that haven't read it, I think it is necessary posting.

Emphasis mine. Because the goal of FIRST is to spread awareness of STEM and to inspire more students to pursue STEM education, the amount of mentor involvement on a team does not matter as long as those goals are being met.

mathking

12-02-2012, 22:32

I though long and hard about posting on another of these threads. Every team is different, and even one team changes from year to year. I think that one of the worst reactions to have when looking at how another team operates is to believe that you are better than they are because you do things differently. I strongly believe that the most important bond that gets formed in FRC is the bond between mentors and students. I understand and agree with Dean's position about FIRST not being an educational institution. But as a teacher I also think I would not be doing my job if I allowed FRC not to be an educational experience for the students. A big part of that educational experience is collaboration between students and mentors. Collaboration means that we discuss, and listen to everyone's input, and discuss, sometimes argue, and discuss (by now you should be seeing why we sometimes have trouble getting the robot done by ship/stop build date) some more. When problems arise we go back and forth for solutions.

This year's ball gathering device started with a basic design I advanced. Then a student (and a new one at that) suggested a simple change which made the design much better. We worked on it some more and a mentor and student pointed out a couple simple flaws, which testing of the prototype confirmed. And they suggested a fix. Which worked. Then a parent and another student suggested another change. Which distinctly improved the robot. Then we found an annoying but not fatal problem, for a which a mentor found an excellent, easy to implement solution. Finally the student who made the first revision suggested a final solution that actually made the whole thing work better using one less motor. And now we have a very nice gathering device which is simple, easy to remove and inexpensive. That wouldn't have happened if we had proscribed roles for mentors and students.

On our team we have had a strong tradition of the mentors teaching the kids how to do things. Mentors do a lot, and not just high level management. We cut things and drill things. But we try to show the kids how to do it, so they will learn. As a general goal, by the end of the season we want to be in a position where the kids can diagnose and fix any problems that occur with the robot. We also have a strong tradition of the mentors working really closely with the students. Occasionally we argue. We try to always be respectful with it. Arguments are not bad if everyone is being respectful and listening to the other side. More often than not, each party to the argument has a valid point to make. Sometimes that is a point the other people haven't yet considered. More than once I have let kids pursue an idea I *knew* would not work, because I felt they needed to see it not work in order to understand why it wouldn't work. Partly this is because I am a teacher and I think it is the right thing to do. Partly is because a few of those times I *knew* something wouldn't work I was wrong, because I didn't understand the situation well enough.

Our team does NOT have a magic formula. We have something that works pretty well for us. Find something that works for you.

That said, I would plead with all of the teachers out there running teams not to let the mentors design and build everything. You are missing the chance for your kids to learn a lot. (And frankly, you are fooling yourself if you think that kids who watch someone else build a robot are just as inspired as kids who participate in the building.) Teachers, I would also implore you not to have the students do everything. You are missing the chance for your kids to learn a lot. (And frankly, you are fooling yourself if you think that kids who work on their own building a robot are going to be as inspired as kids who work side by side with adults they look up to.)

Hawiian Cadder

12-02-2012, 22:37

First is not about the robots, it is about learning what is possible with robotics, and gaining a good working knowledge of engineering concepts that High school does not offer. This is not achieved as much as it could be without any mentor driven Ideas, High school students typically do not have the mental training to entirely develop competitive ideas without outside help. This means that most competitive robots are either drawing heavily on mentor and lead student experience, or they are drawing heavily on high performance teams posting their methods with the understanding that It will help others. I don't think there will be a single robot that performs well were more than 75% of all of the thought process required were driven by that years student build team.

SteveGPage

12-02-2012, 22:46

no disrespect intented.

But That can't be still correct today, could it?..... Look at what he did right after that...

... At the end of the day, what is quoted might be what is meant then, but I cannot understand how it could be true today. It defeats the purpose of having the students *do*...

I totally disagree. Dean certainly doesn't need me to defend his words, so I will just say I've heard him say similar things in the last couple of years, so I think he still believes what he said in 1998.

From my perspective, regarding the role of mentors on a team - this just isn't for "kids" this is for "future STEM professionals. This is the best STEM curriculum in the world, wrapped up in the form of entertainment and competition. If they are not learning and not being inspired, then it certainly doesn't meet the goals of FIRST. How that is done, however, is dependent on the "market" where this is practiced. There can be instances where telling students to do it all themselves could be totally uninspiring, leading to total frustration, and causing them to quit. Likewise, having them sit on the sidelines, and not get a chance to be involved can also sour them on the whole experience. What works for one team, in their community, may not work for another.

In my workplace, I manage a team of education professionals. They have all gone to college, some with advanced degrees, some with experience at other organizations - but when they join our company, they are assigned a Mentor for their first two years. At the beginning, they get to only observe the training events that our company provides, then a chance to teach more and more, finally they are allowed to "go solo." Some need all 2 years to get up to speed, others, perhaps half that. The mentors are there to make sure they have the skills they need to be successful in our organization. The mentors in our company want the new employees to be successful as quickly as possible, so they can contribute to our overall success.

The same is true on our FRC team. We mentor them, so that hopefully they have the skills to be successful STEM professionals. Our FRC team is probably a 60/40 split between students and mentors. If a mentor is doing something, it with as much assistance as a student can give. If the student can do the job, the mentor is there to observe and advise. On our FTC teams, it is probably a 90/10 student to mentor split and FLL is then 100/0 split. But each level has its own goals and its own focus. FLL is not FRC for really short people, and FRC is not giant legos. The different levels of FIRST meet the kids where they are, with what they can do, and at what level of development they are in. They should be viewed as a part of progressive journey, where the goal is to grow the best STEM professionals we can.

On our team, the robot and the competition is a bonus - the learning is the key. How that works, is up to each team to decide, and that may change from year to year.

nileshp87

12-02-2012, 22:54

Tom Line

12-02-2012, 22:58

Karthik

12-02-2012, 22:59

@cory:

Two things:
1. Get at me

I shouldn't even dignify this comment with a response, but I can't resist.

Seriously? "Get at me"... Seriously? Comments like this remind me of why I hate the internet yet simultaneously it leaves me laughing hysterically.

{Where I'm from "Get at me" is a way of challenging someone to a physical fight. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize. However, the miscommunication made me laugh at lot.)

Basel A

12-02-2012, 22:59

I can't speak about FLL, having never worked with an FLL team nor judged at a competition. It's easy to simply say, "The focus in FLL is different," but I simply don't know. But here's what I do know: In my entire life, inside FRC and outside, I've always been more inspired by knowledgeable people who can explain "why" than by my own trial-and-error that leads only to a "what."

SousVide, you seem to imply that one can't be inspired by a robot they did not design, build, or program. But let me say this: as a whole, I've been more inspired by FRC robots I never touched than the robots I've spent dozens of hours designing. It's not the same situation, but I don't think that's too different from a team in which mentors do all the designing, building, and programming.

nitneylion452

12-02-2012, 23:08

Hey guys, I made the offending thread that was subsequently locked. I just narrowly escaped the internet police.

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

Responding to the majority of the comments here, as well as some other ones. I am sorry my post offended you, I did not mean it to be a troll post or any such thing. I was merely stating an observation and frustration.

In my opinion, mentors should be allowed to do, but I feel like these teams don't even appear to give the students a chance to work on it.

This is my problem with the current mentor situation, and I stand by what I said yesterday, and I still mean every word of it. Good luck trying to send the internet police after me again, I am very afraid.

@cory:

Two things:
1. Get at me
2. Heres a quote from you:
"I'll abide by that myself. If some think my posts are inappropriate and rude, that's fine. They were my words and I won't hide from them."

Excluding what has been underlined, this is exactly what you should have done in the first place. State that you didn't mean to offend anybody and it is just your opinion. Had you done this, there would have been some serious discussion about mentor's involvement. Instead, you let the community stew in anger at your remarks. They weren't angry that you said you feel that some teams have mentors do too much, they were angry that you called out a team based on what seemed to be a 30 some second video.

Tom Line

12-02-2012, 23:14

I was merely stating an observation and frustration.

In my opinion, mentors should be allowed to do, but I feel like these teams don't even appear to give the students a chance to work on it.

This is my problem with the current mentor situation, and I stand by what I said yesterday, and I still mean every word of it.

I have to admit, I am extremely curious now. Why are you so upset about what appears to go on with other teams? Do you have any first hand experience with those teams to back up your assumptions that the mentors do all the work? Have you ever worked with them during build season to see how they function?

Billfred

12-02-2012, 23:18

My answer: Whatever works for your team. The amount of student/mentor input and direction on the robot build (both in design and construction) varies from year to year on 2815. It's never zero for either side.

nileshp87

12-02-2012, 23:19

NoMentorsAtachd

12-02-2012, 23:21

If I were ever on a team who pushed the mentors into the background and didn't let them work just as hard as the students, I'd quit and not go back.

I don't plan on spending half a year every year in an activity where I'm expected to sit back and watch, or simply help out every now and then.

I stay in FIRST because I enjoy the competition, and I enjoy working with the team.

I think that any student who believes that team should be 100% run by students with a robot built by students should take a step back and consider that. Most of the mentors are here because it's fun for them too.

Hi Tom. I recently made an account specifically to reply to posts like these in light of the current controversy. I choose to not include any specific team information because I have noticed alot of rage against the OP.

Anyway, I would like to reply to the underlined statement.

I am on a team which has highly capable mentors who have admitted that at times they have had a strong urge to jump in and become super involved in building the robot but have had enough self control to understand that students lose interest really, really quickly when left alone to sit on the sidelines and watch the critical design and fabrication process.

To reply to Dean Kamen's analogy that relates FIRST kids to being little league'rs looking up to mentors and the complicated build process, the FRC, I'd like to say this: those students becomes interested because they saw how cool robotics and technology can be, I can say on behalf of the majority of students in FIRST because I am a STUDENT, that if left to watch mentors do that which we were so interested in, namely building a robot while leaving us to watch, we progressively lose interest and are inwardly disappointed because we are not allowed to freely engage in the activity.

Kids playing baseball all have a coach which teach them at a young age HOW to play, but as those members mature they are the only ones PLAYING and actively developing skill.

Mentors should sit on the sidelines, guide, and not feel dejected because they are not receiving the action the actual students should be getting.

Any team that does not let a student fully realize and develop their potential is hindering the student and that is not in the spirit of FIRST.

MrForbes

12-02-2012, 23:22

I think we can all agree that there exists some teams where the mentors do all or most of the work on the robot.

I disagree, because I've never seen it happen.

My guess is that you've never seen it happen either.

Karthik

12-02-2012, 23:22

Agreed. This is how our team works, and why we have a 1:1 ratio of students to mentors. It's been working for 16-17 years.

I recognize that our team was referenced in the thread that was closed yesterday. No team wishes to be criticized, but sadly it happens from time to time. Lack of comprehension may cause conflict or an unwanted opinion. I do not wish to bash "nileshp87" but would instead offer him/her the chance to visit our facilities and see how we work.

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

For those who aren't aware, Team 175 - Buzz, is a member of the FIRST Hall of Fame, winning the Championship Chairman's award in 2002. I'm sure most people on these forums understand the significance of this, but for those who don't, allow me to elaborate. The below is taken from the FIRST manual, with some text bolded for emphasis.

The FIRST Robotics Competition is about much more than the mechanics of building a robot or winning a competitive event. It is about the partnership among people who are part of the FIRST community and the impact on those who participate in FIRST programs with a united goal of achieving FIRST’s mission. FIRST’s mission is to change the way young people regard science and technology and to inspiring an appreciation for the real-life rewards and career opportunities in these fields.

...

The Chairman’s Award was created to keep the central focus of the FIRST Robotics Competition as our ultimate goal for transforming the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology, as well as encourage more of today’s youth to become scientists, engineers, and technologists.

The Chairman’s Award represents the spirit of FIRST. It honors the team that, in the judges’ estimation, best represents a model for other teams to emulate, and which embodies the goals and purpose of FIRST. It remains FIRST’s most prestigious award.

Buzz, as a recipient of this award at the Championship level, was deemed by FIRST to be a model for other teams to emulate, as they embody the purpose of FIRST. Simply put, FIRST wants us to strive to become like Buzz and to learn from them.

Nileshp87, I suggest you take up Buzz on their offer for a tour of their facilities. There's definitely a lot that can be learned from them by anyone in the community. I know if I was in the area I'd be honoured to visit their facilities.

nileshp87

12-02-2012, 23:27

@Karthik

That probably came off the reverse of what I meant to people who had not been there. I just did not feel like typing out how we had seen their team have a good balance of working together etc. etc.

It was my apology to buzz, but it was aimed directly at Buzz.

jblay

12-02-2012, 23:29

I am on a team where our student to mentor ratio is like 5:1 and the vast majority of building is done by students and the design of the bot is done entirely by students with mentors taking looks and giving advice. But this is just the way we run it because we feel it is what will give the kids the best learning experience. As mentors we step in and take charge when it is necessary to get things going in the right direction but we always remember that the main goal of this program is to teach students.

It is not about who does what on the robot, it is about the kids learning the most and for some teams that maybe the mentors doing more on their robots than on other teams. If the best thing for some team or for some student is for the mentor to lead the construction of a robot part and for the kids to learn from the mentor, then that is absolutely the way that team should run things.

It is important to not forget the ultimate goal of FIRST and if there are teams where the kids don't learn remember that you are getting more out of it than they are. But I personally have never really seen it as a big issue that the students aren't working on the bot. It is easier to assume that teams with awesome robots like 254 or 1114 or so on are just mentor built than to recognize them for their great work.

SteveGPage

12-02-2012, 23:30

I think we can all agree that there exists some teams where the mentors do all or most of the work on the robot.

To me personally, as a student, FIRST is FRC is a competition that takes place in high school. Having a robot be built almost entirely by mentors feels akin to cheating (or maybe bad sportsmanship).

Think of it as a spelling bee with little kids in it, then some adult comes and spells all the words for his\her kid in their place. Then tries to play it off as some kind of educational experience.

I can understand how you feel that way, but to use your own analogy, FRC is a competition that takes place in high school, but the challenge is that the rules and requirements of the competition are designed for someone in college. FRC is going to force you to stretch beyond what you have ever done before, and beyond what you have ever learned before. We, the mentors, want to give you knowledge to do so, and since FIRST doesn't expect you to know how to do it on your own, they have set up the competition to give you that level of support. It isn't cheating use the help that FIRST has put there for you.

There is a great quote, which I'll paraphrase since I don't recall the exact wording, from the book "The New Cool" --- "Why would I want to build a bicycle by myself, when I could build a Ferrari, with the help of a mentor?"

We just want you to be able to the do the best you can do, which is why most of us are here.

AlecMataloni

12-02-2012, 23:32

@Karthik

I just did not feel like typing out how we had seen their team have a good balance of working together etc. etc.

You might want to feel like typing those things out, as it confuses people when you make very vague statements like the one you are referring to.

nileshp87

12-02-2012, 23:39

I am on my phone, and typing is a bit of a pain (boarding school where internet gets shut off at night) . And not seeing something does not imply it does not exist, unless you don't believe in creationism or evolution or many other things.

Last post, just look at what the students in this thread are saying.

GW Kalrod

12-02-2012, 23:45

Billfred

12-02-2012, 23:50

Hi Tom. I recently made an account specifically to reply to posts like these in light of the current controversy. I choose to not include any specific team information because I have noticed alot of rage against the OP.

Anyway, I would like to reply to the underlined statement.

I am on a team which has highly capable mentors who have admitted that at times they have had a strong urge to jump in and become super involved in building the robot but have had enough self control to understand that students lose interest really, really quickly when left alone to sit on the sidelines and watch the critical design and fabrication process.

To reply to Dean Kamen's analogy that relates FIRST kids to being little league'rs looking up to mentors and the complicated build process, the FRC, I'd like to say this: those students becomes interested because they saw how cool robotics and technology can be, I can say on behalf of the majority of students in FIRST because I am a STUDENT, that if left to watch mentors do that which we were so interested in, namely building a robot while leaving us to watch, we progressively lose interest and are inwardly disappointed because we are not allowed to freely engage in the activity.

Kids playing baseball all have a coach which teach them at a young age HOW to play, but as those members mature they are the only ones PLAYING and actively developing skill.

Mentors should sit on the sidelines, guide, and not feel dejected because they are not receiving the action the actual students should be getting.

Any team that does not let a student fully realize and develop their potential is hindering the student and that is not in the spirit of FIRST.

First off, as a moderator: This post is in breach of ChiefDelphi forum rules:
Creating multiple accounts for a single person is not allowed.

With that out of the way, let me ask some questions:

1) If a team can't press a pinion gear onto a motor properly, but a mentor can take it to work and get the operation done quickly and effectively, should the mentor "sit on the sidelines"?
2) If a team has four hacksaws, 40 feet of pipe that needs cutting, and three available students, should that fourth hacksaw just sit on the shelf?
3) If a mentor's demonstration can save the team valuable time and resources, should a student tear it down and start it fresh?

I submit the answer is no to all of these. Balance is the answer.

wireties

12-02-2012, 23:58

I think we can all agree that there exists some teams where the mentors do all or most of the work on the robot.

I've been a FRC mentor for 9 years now and have never seen one. There are many philosophies to be sure but none, that I am aware of, where the mentors do ALL the work.

To me personally, as a student, FIRST is FRC is a competition that takes place in high school. Having a robot be built almost entirely by mentors feels akin to cheating (or maybe bad sportsmanship).

Think of it as a spelling bee with little kids in it, then some adult comes and spells all the words for his\her kid in their place. Then tries to play it off as some kind of educational experience.

No offense intended but perhaps a competition that is totally student-designed and student-built is a better environment for you. There are numerous such fun and awesome events.

FRC is orders of magnitude more complex than spelling, or any sport played with a ball (most of which I also love to play). It is a rare group of high school students that could build a first-tier FRC bot in 6 weeks. It just can't be done - the league would have to change fundamentally or die. And before we mention the many very talented seniors on most teams, remember where they learned their skills.

I started mentoring a team 9 years ago, not to re-live my youth but to influence my son's decision to become an engineer. He graduated with an EE degree 4 years ago. My daughter will graduate in May with an EE degree. Both won design competitions at school and credit their FRC experience. I continue as a mentor because the teacher/coach and I became good friends. My experience is typical, not extraordinary. FRC mentors participate with an outward-focus and a heart and mind for service.

Alan Anderson

13-02-2012, 00:03

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I can only hope you grow out of your blindness soon.[/QUOTE]

372 lives on

13-02-2012, 00:36

With that out of the way, let me ask some questions:

1) If a team can't press a pinion gear onto a motor properly, but a mentor can take it to work and get the operation done quickly and effectively, should the mentor "sit on the sidelines"?
2) If a team has four hacksaws, 40 feet of pipe that needs cutting, and three available students, should that fourth hacksaw just sit on the shelf?
3) If a mentor's demonstration can save the team valuable time and resources, should a student tear it down and start it fresh?

I submit the answer is no to all of these. Balance is the answer.

YESSS...

it looks to me most people who post in this thread are on teams with plenty of mentor help. So i will post a perspective of the opposite.
my team has a few vary capable mentors who have been doing first since pre-2000 since I have been here we only have mentors helping us for one or two days a weeks leaving us alone, except the school adviser, for the other four days. the mentors will normally help teach how to use tools and basic stuff; they will not touch the robot unless we need a custom part that we cant make ourselves(our school only has a small wood/welding shop with limited equipment). I find this method does work well for people on the team to INSPIRE stem but unless you are super committed it is difficult for people to find there place on the team (we have averaged less than 15 members for the last 5 years.). Our robot designs are usually rather effective and able to compete with the "'"best"'" teams. members of our team have learned far more than members of the local mentor heavy teams(yes I know this for a fact).
so from what i have seen more mentor help will inspire more people, but less mentor help will inspire people more.

P.S.
I disagree, because I've never seen it happen.
t
My guess is that you've never seen it happen either.

I have seen teams where mentors do all the work there isn't as many as some people think but there definitely are some out there.

wireties

13-02-2012, 00:44

Our robot designs are usually rather effective and able to compete with the "best" teams. members of our team have learned far more than members of the local mentor heavy teams(yes I know this for a fact)...

I have seen teams where mentors do all the work there isn't as many as some people think but there definitely are some out there.

No offense, but exactly where (and over what time period) did you acquire this extraordinary information? Did you perform some sort of test (from a valid sample set)? If CD sees multiple students (from multiple years) make this statement (mentors design/build everything) about their team, I'm listening. Otherwise such observations are hearsay and/or anomalous.

nitneylion452

13-02-2012, 00:45

YESSS...

it looks to me most people who post in this thread are on teams with plenty of mentor help. So i will post a perspective of the opposite.
my team has a few vary capable mentors who have been doing first since pre-2000 since I have been here we only have mentors helping us for one or two days a weeks leaving us alone, except the school adviser, for the other four days. the mentors will normally help teach how to use tools and basic stuff; they will not touch the robot unless we need a custom part that we cant make ourselves(our school only has a small wood/welding shop with limited equipment). I find this method does work well for people on the team to INSPIRE stem but unless you are super committed it is difficult for people to find there place on the team (we have averaged less than 15 members for the last 5 years.). Our robot designs are usually rather effective and able to compete with the "'"best"'" teams. members of our team have learned far more than members of the local mentor heavy teams(yes I know this for a fact).
so from what i have seen more mentor help will inspire more people, but less mentor help will inspire people more.

P.S.

I have seen teams where mentors do all the work there isn't as many as some people think but there definitely are some out there.

My team is in it's 3rd season. Year 1, we had 1 capable mentor. Year 2, we had 2. This year, we still have 2 (I'm not including myself as a capable mentor as I only graduated last year. I help with smaller tasks that involve hand tools and such.) I have the same opinion as the majority of the people who have posted on this thread.

EDIT: We also have some parents and teachers who help, but I was limiting the scope to engineering mentors with careers in the field.

wireties

13-02-2012, 00:52

it looks to me most people who post in this thread are on teams with plenty of mentor help.

The mentor:student teacher ratio on our team is 1:10, last year it was 1:40+ (me being the one). With all due respect, I strongly disagree with your assertions - I've lived it.

DavidGitz

13-02-2012, 01:10

Here are my thoughts. I've been involved with FRC for for 11 years, 4 as a student and 7 as a coach/mentor. Our current "robot" team (comprised of mechanical, electrical and software teams) has about 70 students on it. We have 2 main team mentors: myself, an EE and our main team mentor, a Physics teacher. We have a couple other parents/teachers and NEMO's who are also involved but with a lesser level of technical proficiency, but they are all very dedicated and intelligent individuals.

Our entire team is student-run, as in we have students that run each of the sub-teams and are responsible for their respective responsibilities, robot-related or otherwise. We try to give every student a good amount of responsibility and level of ownership.

We also try to stay as flexible as possible. For some students we may say make this part, exactly according to this specification and do it as fast as possible. For other students we may say that we need to accomplish this task and that's it. I personally don't feel that this is an all-or-nothing debate for a team, but instead need to focus on the individual. If I have a student who gets inspired by me showing them step-by-step how to solve a problem or perform a task I'll do it, even if it includes me performing the work itself. If I have a student who prefers that I take a step back and let them learn from their mistakes with minimal guidance, I'll do that too. Most students fall somewhere in between, which as a mentor is important to recognize where they are so we can have the biggest impact. As many people post here, FIRST is about Inspiring and Recognizing the Science and Technology. As a team with a low ratio of students/mentors but still a very successful team we feel that this strategy as a whole works well, from the public perspective. However, that (to me) is not the key point of this discussion.

The point is, which is essentially what nileshp87 does not understand, is that the inspiration and recognition has no direct relation to the amount of awards that a team receives at a competition, which I assume is what really caused their misinformed post in the first place. If I can meet the goals of FIRST by working with students to make a competition winning robot, fine. If I can also meet the goals of FIRST by other activities that do not entail having a competition winning robot, that is also fine. They are both equal. I've had students on both sides of the fence. Sometimes whey the see a winning machine which truly trumps their best laid plans it inspires them to stretch the bounds of the imagination. For others, when you win it gives them a sense of accomplishment that is unrivaled.

These are just my "ravings" and I would like to inform nilesph87 that you are not alone in your opinion of FIRST teams. I know several people who feel the same way (and some of them are family :( ). Unfortunately, these people are under the impression that the point of FRC is to produce a robot that wins awards and is made by high school students. Which is completely wrong.

My apologies if this is lengthy, it is fairly late for me. I just personally get frustrated when people have this opinion (not to mention from attacking a FANTASTIC team) but in Dean's words (correct me if I'm wrong) these people "just don't get it".

Joe G.

13-02-2012, 01:34

I will speak as another former student. Let me tell you a story.

Once upon a time, I was an excited high school freshman. I'd been through five years of FLL, two years of VEX, and four years of working independently on a battlebot. I'd built some good robots for those events, and thought I knew it all. I had been counting down the days until I was old enough to join an FRC team.

The team at my high school was essentially starting fresh that year, with a new teacher, and almost entirely new students. The teacher was a laid back type. He said that the team would be mostly student run. I encouraged this, and helped to ingrain an attitude in the team that would come to haunt me years later. I did this because I was stupid, because I thought I knew all the engineering required to build one of these robots.

Build season that year destroyed me. It became apparent that I was in way over my head, along with every other student on the team. We put in many sleepless nights of work, but it wasn't enough to overcome our lack of knowledge. We had a dismal robot that year, and a lot of inter-team conflict over that dismal robot. I got excited about the chance to try again next year, and learn from my mistakes. But that's just my optimistic personality.

Next year, only 4 members of a 15 person team returned.

The next three years were filled with similar cycles. Sporadic successes were mixed in there, but for the most part, FRC went from a dream come true, to a stress-inducing chore. The team's situation did not improve, because of the "students only" attitude that I pushed so hard for my freshman year, that was too late to turn around. The majority of students left when the experience turned frustrating, and even those like me were immediately shunned upon graduation. Knowledge was gained and lost and gained again, each year. I learned much more from spending my spare time on Chief Delphi, than I did stumbling through four build seasons.

I can think of only a couple students whose life was turned towards engineering by that system.

I can think of many more talented individuals who were pushed away from engineering, because being thrown into FRC like a fish in the north atlantic made them think they were no good at engineering. I probably would have gone the same way if I hadn't had inspiring experiences pre-high school in other programs.

If a team makes students feel bad about their abilities, and discourages them from going into engineering, they are doing it wrong, no matter how much direct experience the students get.

I look back on high school and think. What if I'd worked with someone with more experience building that roller claw, instead of wasting a month, lots of PVC, and all our tubes on it? What if someone had told us our 2008 drive system was fundamentally flawed before we showed up at the regional unable to move? What if we'd worked with those great teams who would help us at the regional, rather than being told by our team's culture to shun them, because they did FIRST wrong?

And most hauntingly, I think things like this.
-What if Aaron had someone to help with that cool drive system he thought of, rather than getting frustrated and quitting?
-What if Mike was able to see all the long hours he put in on the bandsaw turn into a beautiful robot, instead of a pile of parts held together by zipties?
-What if Katie had been taught programming, instead of stumbling through it blindly?
-What if someone machined all the parts we couldn't, that Miranda CADded before she left? What if the next year, when we got some machining capabilities, there was someone who knew CAD?

Trust me when I say this. It's clear how an all mentor team is not inspiring. It's not so clear how an all student team can be even more dangerous. This post is intended to shed light on the dangers of extremes. A rigidly student run team is something many people seem to strive for.

I've lived it. I don't want you to.

Absolutes in life rarely make sense. They don't make sense with FRC teams either.

What is the maximum amount of mentor involvement allowed in a robot build, by percentage?

If design is a process of continuous improvement, the time to complete a robot is infinate. Therefore, work to be done is infinate. And therefore, students AND mentors should put in all the effort they possibly can. If either steps back or pushes the other away, the team will suffer.

jason701802

13-02-2012, 01:40

This comes up every year (and it will come up again and again) and to be honest it doesn't matter what we say, People will see what they want to see and if they believe that teams that have mentors who build their robots (or even assist in any way shape or form) are the root of evil.
Perhaps the only way to deal with it is to let them stew in their own juices and take them off your pick list. Sometimes the best lessons come with a swift kick to the rear.

And what does that teach anyone? The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

With that out of the way, let me ask some questions:

1) If a team can't press a pinion gear onto a motor properly, but a mentor can take it to work and get the operation done quickly and effectively, should the mentor "sit on the sidelines"?
2) If a team has four hacksaws, 40 feet of pipe that needs cutting, and three available students, should that fourth hacksaw just sit on the shelf?
3) If a mentor's demonstration can save the team valuable time and resources, should a student tear it down and start it fresh?

I submit the answer is no to all of these. Balance is the answer.

I agree that the answer to all of these is no. I think it is only okay for a mentor to work on the robot if every student is busy and every interested student knows how to do the task in question. By definition, a mentor is a counselor or teacher, not a doer. A mentor should never do something that could be done by a student, and if they do, they aren't really a mentor. The moment that a mentor takes an active role in the design, they have crossed a line. They can pass on a lot of knowledge, give guidelines for design, show and explain examples of good and bad designs, and offer critiques, but, again, if they take control, they are no longer a teacher or a counselor, and thus not a mentor.

Random side-note for some extra thought: many of the greatest innovation throughout history have come from people who have ignored standard practices and traditional thinking.

SousVide

13-02-2012, 02:01

I don't know how we are disagreeing... We are pretty much saying exactly the same thing. The students work with the Mentors... well, mentoring... and not adults as super-team-members who do everything while students are sitting around "being inspired".

The latter being what is being represented by Dean's words from the original poster (not the O-OP, but OP for the Dean's words.)

I just think some folks get confused about what mentoring is. It's a process where you have the person you are mentoring pick-up and learn the skill, and then they become mentors themselves in transferring those same skills and processes onto others - hopefully, maybe improving on them and doing something great with those skills.

I totally disagree. Dean certainly doesn't need me to defend his words, so I will just say I've heard him say similar things in the last couple of years, so I think he still believes what he said in 1998.

From my perspective, regarding the role of mentors on a team - this just isn't for "kids" this is for "future STEM professionals. This is the best STEM curriculum in the world, wrapped up in the form of entertainment and competition. If they are not learning and not being inspired, then it certainly doesn't meet the goals of FIRST. How that is done, however, is dependent on the "market" where this is practiced. There can be instances where telling students to do it all themselves could be totally uninspiring, leading to total frustration, and causing them to quit. Likewise, having them sit on the sidelines, and not get a chance to be involved can also sour them on the whole experience. What works for one team, in their community, may not work for another.

In my workplace, I manage a team of education professionals. They have all gone to college, some with advanced degrees, some with experience at other organizations - but when they join our company, they are assigned a Mentor for their first two years. At the beginning, they get to only observe the training events that our company provides, then a chance to teach more and more, finally they are allowed to "go solo." Some need all 2 years to get up to speed, others, perhaps half that. The mentors are there to make sure they have the skills they need to be successful in our organization. The mentors in our company want the new employees to be successful as quickly as possible, so they can contribute to our overall success.

The same is true on our FRC team. We mentor them, so that hopefully they have the skills to be successful STEM professionals. Our FRC team is probably a 60/40 split between students and mentors. If a mentor is doing something, it with as much assistance as a student can give. If the student can do the job, the mentor is there to observe and advise. On our FTC teams, it is probably a 90/10 student to mentor split and FLL is then 100/0 split. But each level has its own goals and its own focus. FLL is not FRC for really short people, and FRC is not giant legos. The different levels of FIRST meet the kids where they are, with what they can do, and at what level of development they are in. They should be viewed as a part of progressive journey, where the goal is to grow the best STEM professionals we can.

On our team, the robot and the competition is a bonus - the learning is the key. How that works, is up to each team to decide, and that may change from year to year.

Akash Rastogi

13-02-2012, 02:09

The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

I have had a completely different experience than you then. I have been most inspired to pursue engineering and perform at a higher level by the most dominant teams in FIRST, not by the teams who struggle to put a robot on the field.

There are different types of inspiration. A team who dominates and leaves you in the dust drives you and inspires you to reach greatness. A team who succeeds in achieving their goals with what little help they have inspires you do be humble and give help and advice where it is needed.

I have been a student on a decently well known team for 4 years (Team 11) and now mentor a rookie team that I co founded (3929). We have around 30 students and around 14-16 constantly active mentors. We have two bots. We have worked our butts off (students AND mentors) in hopes of reaching the level of our strongest opponents. Attempting anything else than greatness is in my opinion, mediocre.

If I was supposed to sit on the sidelines and give tidbits of advice as a "mentor" then I probably would not be mentoring an FRC team. Working alongside my students (they're mostly only 4 years younger than me) is the most amazing joy I have ever felt. When students are able to learn from me and accomplish something without me, that is a great feeling. But that cannot be achieved if I sit on the sidelines. We run our team the way we see fit. So far, our students have no complaints (trust me, we ask them at the end of each week if they would like to change something about the way we are doing things). If they didn't like our level of involvement, which I am not afraid to say is quite a bit, why would they still keep coming back and in larger numbers? Why would they volunteer to stay later at meetings to work with us to finish sub-assemblies of the robot? The relationship we have with our students is the most powerful tool of inspiration, and I believe that that relationship is unattainable by just sitting on the sidelines.

@nilesh

The real question is: why do you care? How does this affect you? Are the other teams taking something away from you? Or are you just very ignorant and jealous of others' success?

wireties

13-02-2012, 02:09

And what does that teach anyone? The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.

Jason - I hate to beat a dead horse in this thread. But you have made extraordinary claims and I have to ask: How many students did you talk to? How did you assess the % of student involvement on each student's team? How many students per team did you sample? Were these students first, second, third or fourth year? How did you gauge the student level of excitement? Did you record any of the observations? (not to reveal here but to make sure your year over year data was consistent) Did you query the correlating mentors?

Do you see what I'm getting at? One can't just make believable claims w/o supporting data. it just does not ring true.

I agree that the answer to all of these is no. I think it is only okay for a mentor to work on the robot if every student is busy and every interested student knows how to do the task in question. By definition, a mentor is a counselor or teacher, not a doer.

From the dictionary - a wise or trusted adviser or guide - One wants their "guides" to show them how to do things. One wants wise, trusted advisors to be "doers" if the advisor thinks it best.

They can pass on a lot of knowledge, give guidelines for design, show and explain examples of good and bad designs, and offer critiques...

Agreed - but how is this not playing an active role? You state one principle then gives examples of something very different.

Another thing - the term "mentor", as used in FRC, is not strictly the one from the dictionary. Your definition is far from complete. FRC teams are meant to resemble real-world engineering organizations where mentors are muuuuuch more than teachers or counselors. In a professional context, mentors are held responsible for the progress and success of a novice. It is a much more formal and collaborative role.

SousVide

13-02-2012, 02:18

I don't think any of us really have to debate or consult the oracle on what FRC/FIRST defines as a mentor, their roles, etc, etc... There's a guide for that:
http://www.usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Community/FRC/Team_Resources/Mentoring%20Guide.pdf

Jason - I hate to beat a dead horse in this thread. But you have made extraordinary claims and I have to ask: How many students did you talk to? How did you assess the % of student involvement on each student's team? How many students per team did you sample? Were these students first, second, third or fourth year? How did you gauge the student level of excitement? Did you record any of the observations? (not to reveal here but to make sure your year over year data was consistent) Did you query the correlating mentors?

Do you see what I'm getting at? One can't just make believable claims w/o supporting data. it just does not ring true.

From the dictionary - a wise or trusted adviser or guide - One wants their "guides" to show them how to do things. One wants wise, trusted advisors to be "doers" if the advisor thinks it best.

Agreed - but how is this not playing an active role? You state one principle then gives examples of something very different.

Another thing - the term "mentor", as used in FRC, is not strictly the one from the dictionary. Your definition is far from complete. FRC teams are meant to resemble real-world engineering organizations where mentors are muuuuuch more than teachers or counselors. In a professional context, mentors are held responsible for the progress and success of a novice. It is a much more formal and collaborative role.

artdutra04

13-02-2012, 02:44

Something that I think needs to be thought about:

In general, teenagers think they know everything and have the whole world figured out. Some of these students wear their "were 100% student only" FRC team status as some kind of a badge of honor (at least while they are still high school students).

But one thing that needs to be addressed, and that's how these students think back and reflect upon their experiences a few years after high school. When I was in a student in high school, there were teachers who I regarded as very strict, but in hindsight I realized I learned the most from these teachers.

In the same regard, are there students who look back on their high school robotics experiences and wonder: as a student-only team did I miss out on learning valuable experiences and knowledge had we been more receptive to actively involved mentors?

When I look back on my high school FRC experience, I'm glad I was on a team with actively involved mentors and a 50/50 split in student/mentor experience. By working closely with teachers, engineers, technicians, machinists, and other skilled mentors, without a doubt I learned more than I would have if I was on a student-only team.

After I graduated and went on to college, I saw similar experiences. Many of the students from teams with actively involved mentors had a much better grasp of the fundamentals of engineering, the design process, and other good base-level general knowledge. In general, these students seemed to have a better grasp of what real engineering was like, and thus were better prepared for real engineering college courses.

In contrast, many of the college students from predominately student-run FRC teams had an exaggerated sense of their knowledge and capability, and not enough respect for the math and theory behind engineering. Many of these students either dropped out of college or changed majors after the first semester after they experienced for the first time what real engineering was about.

And that's why previously as a college student, and now as an engineer, I have continued to mentor teams in an actively involved manner. There's a big difference between simply bolting random parts together until it barely works and engineering an efficient and elegant solution, and it's the latter that I've always sought to help teach and inspire in students.

And with good mentors, it's always inspiring to me to see how much high school students can design, build, code, and accomplish.

TL, DR: You may be skilled at karate on your own, but imagine how much better you'll be with Mr. Miyagi mentoring you.

davidthefat

13-02-2012, 02:54

I am very hesitant to post, but I'll only speak for the software group.

The mentors I had my rookie year were not very hands on, but they nudged me the right direction and handled all the IT work. We had the same mentors last year, but they rarely showed up and we were pretty much on our own. Their mentality was to not interfere unless we asked, or something was going seriously wrong. I understand what Arthur wrote, but in a sense, not having an imposing pair of mentors really helped me grow. I was going out of my own way to find things out and challenge myself. The mentors were former students and they had similar experiences as me as students. They were mostly left alone until they sought after help. Now, since they do not have the time this year, another mentor replaced the pair. The new mentor is a father of a student who graduated last year, really nice guy. He is also hands off, but he is more of a manager than a mentor, I would say. All the software for the last 3 years has been done by students. I can't speak for any other groups though.

Koko Ed

13-02-2012, 04:31

Yeah man, you've got FIRST nailed. :rolleyes:

Should they receive a reward instead for insulting other teams since you seems to have a better idea what should be done than I?
And what does that teach anyone? The teams that have the best performing robots are not necessarily the ones that do the most inspiration. Some of the most inspired (not excited) kids I have talked to are the ones that are on predominately student teams.
Life is the greatest teacher of all. If you go on your (pick your social media of choice) and say your boss is a big jerk and they find out and fire you, do you believe they are unjustified for doing so? For every action there is a consequence.

45Auto

13-02-2012, 07:35

I bet nileshp37 has seen the Star Wars and Batman movies. FIRST mentors are like Batman and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Perhaps a few examples from those may help him understand how mentoring works.

Batman is Robin's mentor. That doesn't mean that Batman stands there watching Robin get his rear end handed to him by the bad guys.

Obi-wan Kenobi mentored Anakin Skywalker and his son Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars series. That doesn't mean that Obi-Wan stood there and watched Anakin and Luke get stomped by the Dark Side.

Both took an active part in the trials and tribulations their students were going through.

Brian C

13-02-2012, 07:49

Just to add another perspective.

My son and I mentor 5 different teams in our area. He is a former student team member of a now defunct team and we have been involved with FIRST since 1999.

Our level of involvement as mentors differs with each team. Our personal goal is to have the team complete at least 85% of the robot build. There are some areas where we get involved mainly to get the robot completed at the end of 6 weeks. We believe that it's important for the team to have a machine operational at some level when they get to a competition.

We have found that our level of involvment is directly related to the teams abilities and resources. We respect the wishes of the students on each team and encouragge them to create on their own with guidance from us. As can be expected some teams are better at this than others.

The main goal is to guide as much as possible and help when necessary.

Remember an old mentoring mantra:

You watch me do it, We do it together, I leave you to do it.

jwfoss

13-02-2012, 08:49

@team buzz person:
You do not need to invite me to see how your team operates, I have already witnessed it in the pits last year at the competition. I will leave it at that.

nileshp87,

I can see and understand your frustration, however I do not understand turning down the chance to see how other teams opperate. As a current professional mentor who was formally a student, and college mentor I have seen a large range of team operations and been involved in every level of mentor involvement.

Also take some time to listen to the EWCPcast with 1114: Team Spotlight - Featuring 1114 (http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=98466&pageNumber=1&pageSize=15)

I noticed that your team is registered for the Suffield Shakedown Scrimmage and I hope all is going well with the construction of your robot. Please take the time to stop by and talk to the students of FRC2168 (Aluminum Falcons) or for that matter any number of teams attending.

Brandon Holley

13-02-2012, 09:22

The only thing I will add is this:

If you think you have a full understanding of the way a team operates/functions/conducts itself after spending a total of a few minutes observing them at a competition, you don't.

Every team has its own philosophy and approach to it's existence. If you want to have an informed opinion, you need to know the facts. Basing the facts on small observations of a team from a distance does not create the basis for an informed opinion.

If something about another team truly concerns you, don't air the issues publicly without knowing the facts. When a team then offers to show you why your view of the team is incorrect, take the offer and truly learn about that team. The team doesn't have to do that, but the fact that they are shows how classy a team they really are.

I'm surprised to see some of the comments here kind of just thrown out there without realizing the impact those comments will/could have.

-Brando

Bill_B

13-02-2012, 10:32

...
Remember an old mentoring mantra:

You watch me do it, We do it together, I leave you to do it.

Further realize that the "it" is a variable for every team and team member! AND that there are thousands of "its" involved in the process of making a robot and thousands more involved in making a team. Finding the way through that thicket is both the fun and the frustration of FIRST FRC activity. There is ample evidence that this is fun for the vast majority of those of us involved, so the prospect of eventual frustrations is not enough to stifle us. Mentoring has to be learned, too.

Walter Deitzler

13-02-2012, 10:54

I believe that mentors should be able to help as much as possible, as long as students are there with them to learn what they are doing. This is how it works on 3397. If a mentor is building, we try to have a student there learning about what is going on, why the mentor is doing it., etc. This way, us students get the most out of working with engineers.

Andy A.

13-02-2012, 11:14

It's as important that mentors find this as fun and inspiring as it is for students- otherwise it's just like tacking another 5 hours onto my work day I don't get paid for. The goal, as I understand it, is to put highschoolers in close enough proximity to scientists and engineers that they can see us work, try it out and realize it's something they want to do full time. It's not so they can learn how to make a robot.

There's a balance to be struck. Students should be inspired to pursue careers in STEM fields. Mentors should be inspired to continue mentoring. As long as those things happen it really doesn't matter what percentage of the robot is student built or mentor built.

jason701802

13-02-2012, 12:49

Life is the greatest teacher of all. If you go on your (pick your social media of choice) and say your boss is a big jerk and they find out and fire you, do you believe they are unjustified for doing so? For every action there is a consequence.

Okay, so you teach them not to call their boss a jerk in public, I'm not disagreeing with this, but this doesn't teach them how/why the boss' way is better and will probably only cause more dislike for the boss.

Koko Ed

13-02-2012, 13:23

Okay, so you teach them not to call their boss a jerk in public, I'm not disagreeing with this, but this doesn't teach them how/why the boss' way is better and will probably only cause more dislike for the boss.

One of the biggest myths in FIRST is that everybody has to like each other. I never got that. There's too much diverse paths and goals for that. One team may focus on winning regionals and collecting blue banners while another is looking to grow and strengthening the FIRST community while another just wants to offer their students an opportunity for a different path to their future. Every team takes something a little different from the program and it's not always going to jibe with what other teams want and it can cause friction.
I always viewed Gracious Professionalism as "I may not agree with you or even like you but we need to work together to solve this problem. So let's get to work!"

jwfoss

13-02-2012, 13:27

I always viewed Gracious Professionalism as "I may not agree with you or even like you but we need to work together to solve this problem. So let's get to work!"

This definitely applies to more than just FIRST, it's a solid life lesson, and one that is hard to gain in other types of activities.

Koko Ed

13-02-2012, 14:21

This definitely applies to more than just FIRST, it's a solid life lesson, and one that is hard to gain in other types of activities.

It might be the ideal that comes closest to the concept of World Peace (and there are people who still won't even go for that).

superbotman

13-02-2012, 16:14

I do not know everything nor have I seen a large amount of teams working, but in the 4 years I was on an FRC team I learned that just like when creating a robot for the game, there is no right answer. Every team is run differently and every way works, some more than others.

Also every student and mentor is different. I have seen some students be able to much by themselves and rarely need mentor guidance, and I have seen some that need a large amount of guidance. Similar with mentors, I have seen some that are very hands on and actively involved, and some that are less involved and give little nudges here and there, and some that only get involved when specifically asked to help.

There is no single perfect way for a team to function, every team does and should find their own happy medium. They need to also realize that what works best for them may be a horrible way for the next team over to run because everyone is different.
Just my 2 cents.

Garret

13-02-2012, 18:54

I have seen several times in this thread, people literally jumping from extremes, talking about how mentors not being involved would be scenarios where mentors aren't even teaching anything and are acting more like what I would call babysitters, and going as far as to say that it would be this almost utter state of anarchy in which all regard for safety and such is disregarded and all students would end up struggling so much that they give up on STEM forever ( I may have embellished a bit, but not that much at all really ). To the other extreme in which the mentors are in total control and all of the students do absolutely nothing but sit and watch their mentors make the robot. I see both of these as shameful and I would think that everyone else would see them as that as well. In reality what FIRST wants is in between these (and if it isn't in between these I don't want anything to do with FIRST).

On my team, we nudge the students towards a solution so that they feel as if it was their idea. If the students cannot come up with the ideas on their own then we push a little harder, and then after all else is exhausted (and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere/totally wrong direction) do we mentors actually step in and dictate some design decisions on a limited scale.

However if the student comes up with a feasible idea that is different than what we were thinking we go with it (its not about us, we are already inspired which is why we mentor, or at that is why we mentor on 691). With this philosophy we have managed to make all those students who wanted to learn feel as if they did something great (not just watched a mentor come up with something great and then help the mentor); because of this the student now feels more confident and, in my opinion from when I was a student, smart. (I would consider us to be extremely student run, we actually try to refrain from suggesting things that are beyond the current ability of the students.

That's my (1 year of personal and 4 years of my dad) mentor perspective on this.

Now when from when I was a student on the team. Because we had very few mentors when I was on the team I spent a lot of time teaching myself and learning by researching what the super FRC teams had done. In general I attribute my own accomplishments to a little bit of intelligence on my part but mostly a lot of work done by the "giants" (Newton quote reference in sig :D ) who did the things before me. During this time I would have loved to have dedicated mechanical engineering mentor, however I did not so I did the best I could and frankly I think I did a pretty good job (at least last year). However as I look back, I realize how having to struggle has pushed me so much farther ahead than if everything was just handed to me or if I just helped with the design. I believe, I would have been very upset if I just sat there and watched my mentor design the robot.

Just so that no one takes this next part the wrong way (which seems to be happening a lot), I admire many mentors who are very hands-on and are enthusiastic/lucky enough to have the time to be very involved in the design of and FRC robot during the build season. I find mentors who are very involved to be very inspiring and the robots that they guide the students to create (with varying levels of guidance) to be inspirational as well.

This is something I heard from one of my teams sponsors who has had prior experience with this type of high school robotics program: in particular BEST and FIRST. This sponsor had made the observation that students from FIRST don't seem to care as much about the program as students do in BEST. Their basis for this was from interactions with students at competitions. They attribute this to the level of mentor involvement in FIRST. The high level of involvement encouraged in FIRST seems to result in the students feeling more disconnected from the design process than the students in BEST (I honestly have never done BEST nor do I know anything about it). I would tend to agree that the more mentors are involved the less the students feel they have contributed. I have heard other sponsors say how they liked how on our team the students are supposed to do everything with mentor guidance. In fact the principal of our school (base school, as we are a district team) said that she would not support the program if we changed our philosophy in regards to mentor involvement.

Our team mission statement embodies my teams interpretation of the mission of FIRST:

"Our mission as Hart District Robotics is to promote education in science and technology through an exciting, student led, mentor guided, high school robotics team. The program emphasizes team work, self confidence, gracious professionalism, and leadership. It demonstrates the value of individual diversity, combined creativity, and positive achievements not only in our program, but also in our society. "

The bolded part is a cornerstone of our teams identity. This is my teams philosophy and I am quite proud to say that I am from a team that has this philosophy.

I apologize in advance if my post is offensive, rambling (almost definitely a ramble :p ), and that its so long.

jasonbrooks

13-02-2012, 19:43

From the perspective of an FTC team, I think things are much the same. First off, I would love we would love to participate in the FRC competition, but because of financial resources (and the fact that our head coaches wife will divorce him if he stays at school any longer!) we can not. We still operate as an FRC team of sorts. Of course, the FTC competition is simpler and not as intense will scheduling as there are more weeks to build. Our team has 4 mentors for our High School's two FTC teams. We have 1 mentor that helps with all the programming, 1 mentor that helps with all the CAD, 1 mentor that helps with the building, and the head mentor who watches "the whole operation."

I helped start the FTC team at the HS and have therefore watched it change over the past 3.5 years. In the beginning, as we were a new team, we needed much help from the mentors (at that point we didn't have the CAD or programming mentor) to build our robots. Naturally, we didn't know all the laws of building - from the best gear ratios to how to efficiently and effectively wire the motors.

Things change as the years of a team progress. I have learned over the past 3 seasons the best way to accomplish many of the building and electrical tasks on the robot. This knowledge allows me to teach people in lower grades and newer members of the team. With this, over time, the role of mentors changes. However, mentors still never ran the team or didn't let the students build.

Now in our third FTC season, the mentors act as guides, and only help when we ask. This year, we pretty much came up with all the ideas for our mechanisms, built and programmed them, created CAD models along the way, and did most if not all of our PR and outreach connection work. At most, our building mentor will help us prototype a mechanism, our programming mentor will give us suggestions after we run our autonomous programs, and our CAD mentor will help our CAD guys with creating the custom FTC parts not given in the kit of parts (the tank tread idlers for example).

With 4 mentors for two teams of 10 kids, that is a 1:2.5 mentor-to-student ratio. Even with such a high ratio, especially for a FTC team, the students still do primarily all of the work, from fruition of the designs to completion of the bot.

From talking with people on FRC teams, it seems like what I outlined above is the same in both, despite the many differences between FTC and FRC. Can someone let me know if this sounds right?

johnmaguire2013

23-02-2012, 21:31

There is a local team (not my team) which, by the students choice, is 99% student-run. Most of the students actively try to prevent mentors from working with them, as they prefer a product which was built completely by themselves. They are always on time, and have a decent robot by the end of build season. It works.

Our team has a lot of students (maybe too many,) and a fair amount of mentors. For the marketing teams (PR/Media, Website, etc.) the team mentors usually assume a leadership role, making sure that things are taken care of, and if no students can solve an issue, they will come in to help. Additionally, with the website team, our mentor manages the hosting (we're on a type of AWS,) and domain, although even this could be done by our students. Some of the teams hardly get any leadership input (like the website team, which has mostly been a product of a couple students creating and coding a design, and a handful more adding content,) while others rely on it quite strongly (the PR/Media team, which has a couple mentors organizing things, and also handling purchases, etc.)

When it comes to our build teams (mechanical, electrical, effector, etc.) our mentors have a larger role teaching students to use equipment, monitoring safety, and overseeing things. Additionally, they will help out with the actual cutting, use of machinery, etc. both to save time, and to provide examples of the correct ways to do things. Again, they also handle purchases of wood, and other materials.

This works for us. It's not a sure-fire strategy, and every team is different. We also have a student leader, who manages a lot of the sub-teams, and he is pretty much able to do his own thing, regardless of our team coach (a mentor.) I think, as many others have said, it's up for the team to decide the type of involvement.

Bill_B

23-02-2012, 21:58

robert.hatchett

23-02-2012, 22:23

My $0.02....

Much has been said (and will continue to be said) about mentor involvement on teams.

My personal rule of thumb as a mechanical engineer with degree specializiation in robotics and personal involvement since 2004 in FIRST is this - adults advise the students and help them solve the problems they cannot answer on their own.

This may involve "leading" questions to inspire thought, it may be a "white-board exercises" to walk through the problem, it may be playing "devil's advocate" for a number of competing theories. In all, it should always be about the students.

My humble opinion is that, if we cannot advise and inspire high school students to create the design evolution on their own, with adult help advance that evolution to physicality, and execute their design plans on the field we are failing in our mission.

I will always believe that a robot that wins competition and no students are allowed to touch it is a failed robot. Conversely, a robot that obviously had no involvement by anyone schooled in mechanics or engineering that fails the competition should not be in last place. Somewhere in the middle is where we should be as an organization.

My advice to all mentors is to let it ALWAYS be the students' idea. Do NOT project your own opinions. Additionally, play the thought game of ALWAYS arguing against your own opinion/idea and let the students correct you on you "ignorance".

gracie.

23-02-2012, 22:48

Our mentors on 2399 are mostly college/grad students. Their general philosophy is to be as hands off as possible while still teaching us and helping us when we need it. It's created an environment where the expectation is that the students are going to build the robot, and they're going to build all of it. There are still times where mentors have to machine aspects of it (they have access to a machine shop and we don't), but students are always most prominent in the design/build process. I walked into FIRST thinking there was no way in hell I was going to be an engineer, and now through an awesome experience with great students and mentors, it's the only think I can see myself doing. So yeah, I'd say it works out pretty nicely.

EricH

23-02-2012, 23:56

I think, personally, that sometimes a mentor does need to offer an opinion. For whatever reason, a student either can't figure something out, or there are other circumstances, or maybe it's just that sort of team where mentor opinions are treated the same as student opinions.

In that sort of case, the mentor should offer an opinion, but while they offer it, they need to give a reason. The reason can be as simple as "I've seen this work before (on X system that is comparable to what we need to do with Y); let's give it a shot" or as complex as "here is this differential equation", but the students need to understand it. This may take additional mentoring.

For example: We need to exert force X at distance Y, and we are looking at System Z to do it. Rumor is that System Z is probably not going to cut the mustard. Let's look at the engineering analysis to determine a) is System Z going to work and b) if System Z won't work, how can we improve it so that it will? This sort of problem is a great one to run through the analysis on one or two options (and say, "You know, guys, I don't think System Z will work like we want it to") and then turn all the students involved loose on the other options.

Andrew Lawrence

24-02-2012, 00:04

I think a 100% student-run team is as good as a school taught by your peers. Mentors are there because they know all of the things you don't.

On the school subject, imagine a team like a school; The team members students, and mentors teachers. If the mentor/teacher solves all the problems, then the students don't learn anything. If the mentor/teacher doesn't help their students at all, then the students don't learn anything. The best results come from equal mentor : student cooperation.

Just my .02 FIRST dollars

pfreivald

24-02-2012, 00:32

We believe that cooperation between students and mentors is paramount to success in FIRST -- that means both on the field and in the lives of students. FIRST Team 1551 strives to be cooperative at all levels, and mentor/student is no exception.

Our students knew nothing about PID before this season; now they know more than they did. That's a win. It's also a win because our robot works better than it did. By next year, hopefully they'll know even more about what P, I, and D values work, and why.

The long and short of it is this: don't worry overmuch about what other teams are doing. Do what you think is best, and if you think another team has an advantage because of their philosophy, beat them anyway.

Alex Chambers

24-02-2012, 01:07

Our team i very student oriented, we build the robot, we do the design, we do the programming, but we do have mentors to ask for help when we get in a bind and to check our ideas against to insure we don't do something foolish. However as my teammate pointed out many design ideas in first are not arrived at by students but rather by mentors or students who have had some contact with first for multiple years. This year our robotics team as usual was run by students and designed by students but some of our designs drew heavily on teams that we viewed at the national competition that were more mentor driven and as usual some ideas were discussed with mentors before being finalized. Still i am a firm believer that students should always be more involved in the robot then mentors in order to get the best learning experience from first. Don't get me wrong i respect and appreciate all our team's mentors and I don't hesitate to ask for help, but at the same time i expect them to, for the most part allow the students to be responsible for the robot and provide help only when they for-see disaster or are asked.

wireties

24-02-2012, 01:57

There is another angle on the mentor role that isn't mentioned often in this thread. Most (but not all) of the first tier teams have been around for a while. Why is that? I think that mentors and teachers help keep the "corporate" memory of the team. Older students pass on many things to younger students but the teachers and mentors are direct links to the past. And the past has value...

New students make the same mistakes again every year (as do young engineers). It is not a bad thing but an expected and reasonable occurrence. There is no stronger response from a mentor (or older student) than telling the student theirs is a great idea but we tried it in 200X and failed miserably and let us tell you why.

I've been with FRC1296 nine years now along side the same awesome teacher/sponsor. The continuity is valuable. Our "memory" is being reinforced with students (now with engineering & CS degrees) returning as mentors. I've had a lot of fun with the younger mentors this year.

Our students make all decisions but we mentors endeavor to make sure the decisions are based on solid science and math, analyzed and modeled where possible, and executed safely and productively. Sure, the mentors could make a more competitive robot but what fun would that be? It is great to to see the students innovate, master the design process, apply math and science and learn to use the tools. It works for us.

Mark Sheridan

24-02-2012, 03:24

I think its more of "the devil is in the details." I think my students came up with good ideas with very solid intuition and science. I found my role was more to translate their ideas into working models. Students don't know all the details, I am there to fill in the missing pieces.

For example, I don't expect new students to know the pros and cons of set screws. Its my responsibility to show if they need them, why they need them, how to properly to use them in future designs and situations to avoid them.

The physics calculations were handled by the mentors for my team. We try to show students that are interested but mostly its limited to senior students who are taking physics.

Sometimes this means, I have action items that can't be performed by a student but sometimes watching a mentor work through a calculation, through a CAD model or a laser cutter with worthwhile enough for a student.

hipsterjr

24-02-2012, 10:40

342 explains to the parents every year that over the coarse this ratio shift. Preseason/Week 1 it is 90%mentor 10% students as we teach the students. By week 6 it is 10% mentors and 90% students as they have learned the skills and take over the show. My the time regionals come, it is 99% students with the mentor stepping in only when absolutely needed or to give advice. That's why if you vistit 342's pit, most of the mentors are sitting in chairs :D .

johnmaguire2013

24-02-2012, 12:02

Do they ever ask any questions of the mentors? If not, I'd find it unattractive to be on time myself. Is there a reason you didn't give a team number? Not that it matters much to me directly. I was wondering what their website looks like.

I'm sure they do, but not if they can help it. They try to exhaust all other possibilities first. I didn't mention the team because it's really not my place to do so. It's possible that I interpreted their team structure wrong, although we have shared a build space with them.

Additionally, if you've seen posts by me, I harp on websites. Their website is not made for the award though, and is a part of the school they are from's website. It serves to provide basic information to students interested in joining, etc.

dsirovica

24-02-2012, 12:13

wireties

24-02-2012, 12:18

I'm sure they do, but not if they can help it. They try to exhaust all other possibilities first.

My company has a "2 hour rule" - if you spend more than 2 hours working on the same problem w/o progress you must take a break, consult a colleague, do something different to break the impasse. This is good advice on a robotics team with only 6 weeks to build the robot.

It is frustrating, unproductive and a poor learning experience to "exhaust all possibilities" before consulting a mentor. Most people learn using 2 of these 3 methods: reading, hearing, seeing/doing/experiencing. It is a rare student (of any kind) who can simply read about building a robot and go do it. Mentors can tell a student how to perform a task (thus the student hears it) or show them how to perform a task (thus the student sees it). Mentors make impossible tasks (for a typical isolated high school student) possible withing a 6-week window.

RRLedford

26-02-2012, 11:11

The mentor's role is different for every team situation. Not all teams are at a level where students can effectively take on all the responsibilities that must be handled to complete a successful build. I am in my third year mentoring a small team where most of the students have competing extra curricular activities.
We had no build sessions during finals week. We had much of team out of town for break the last four days of build.

We have no seniors and only six students that make most sessions. We have one capable electronics student and one capable programmer. I give these two students full control of those areas, and they need very little input from me. They get things done effectively on the required timeline. The rest of the team has to handle the design and mechanical assembly, but even on good days far too much energy gets wasted goofing around. On a good day for this group, serious focused effort & productivity is happening for maybe 50% of the 2-2.5 hours for our three weekday sessions a week. Attendance at our six hour Saturday sessions are barely 50% from other conflicts.

We consistently end up with a good design concept that is barely rushed to only partial assembly by deadline. No testing, No trouble shooting. No driving. No autonomous. We end up holding back critical unfinished systems to complete them. Then we have to finish building the robot in the pits, while barely making the inspection deadline. We have no practice scrimmages, since we barely pass inspection in time, as we resolve problems.

So, do I take a hands off approach and let them fail miserably? Or, do I pitch in with the build enough so that they can see enough results at competition to consider that the season was an overall success. The father of the student in charge of electronics also mentors, and he wants her to do well at competition. So, he also helps with the build and design considerations. We both would rather do less building and more mentoring, but that would result in a robot that would leave most students thinking, at the end of competition, that the season was an exercise in futility and waste of their time. The program would spiral down and be discontinued in a year or two, which happened previously, if we did not help build the bot.

We two mentors feel obligated to both the school's robotics program, and especially to those students who pour the greatest amount of their time and energy into the season's build effort, to ensure that some minimal level of robot performance is accomplished by the time competition arrives. If this means we have to help with build more than we prefer, then so be it. As long as the students still feel like it is their robot, not the mentor's robot, and they are satisfied with how their season turns out, I am fine fit this approach. As I work to expand the team, and the maturity and skills of its members, I feel that this approach is essential for this stage of its development. I look forward to reaching the stage in our program where "mentors do not build", but right now, this philosophy will not be helpful.

-Dick Ledford

johnmaguire2013

26-02-2012, 12:12

My company has a "2 hour rule" - if you spend more than 2 hours working on the same problem w/o progress you must take a break, consult a colleague, do something different to break the impasse. This is good advice on a robotics team with only 6 weeks to build the robot.

It is frustrating, unproductive and a poor learning experience to "exhaust all possibilities" before consulting a mentor. Most people learn using 2 of these 3 methods: reading, hearing, seeing/doing/experiencing. It is a rare student (of any kind) who can simply read about building a robot and go do it. Mentors can tell a student how to perform a task (thus the student hears it) or show them how to perform a task (thus the student sees it). Mentors make impossible tasks (for a typical isolated high school student) possible withing a 6-week window.

Yes, however many students have been on the team for four years, and pass the information downwards. The students effectively mentor themselves.

It would be really cool and powerful, if there were a mechanism to purify and grow knowledge using crowdsourcing. Kind of like a wikipedia for FIRST.

As in the FIRSTwiki (http://firstwiki.net/index.php/Main_Page)?

coldfusion1279

26-02-2012, 12:29

I used to be a student on our team, and I used to be proud that we could hang with the big boys with a "student-built bot."

I didn't like certain teams because they had a lot of engineering help. I didn't think it was fair. Was I jealous? Yes, but I wouldn't admit it.

Now I realize 8 seasons later, as our team grows, and parents, sponsors and other adults get involved, that I had been looking at the benefits of FIRST from a weird perspective. Not the wrong perspective, because there's nothing wrong with students who are proud they built a robot with minimal guidance.

It was hard for me to see the type of learning environment that the heavily sponsored and mentored teams have from the outside looking in.

IMHO, learning is more efficient by watching a teacher do something correctly, rather than struggling mightily to make something flawed perform flawlessly.

JaneYoung

26-02-2012, 12:47

Sometimes, we are good at passing down the information and experience of the team. Sometimes, we are really horrible at it. Helping to make that a priority within the team, strengthens it, sustains its productivity, and provides consistency in team performance. This is an area that I address with 418 each year and it is an area that I stress when working with other teams. That it should be a part of our training and our organizational process. In my opinion, this is why our long term mentors are key members and leaders of the team... because we are the vessels that hold the knowledge and experience over time. As our students and parents move on and new students, parents, and mentors become a part of our historical tapestry that we are constantly weaving, we are there to help the beautiful story unfold and be told. It is also why alumni are so very important to the team. They are woven into the tapestry and hold the stories of their time and experiences with the team.

It saddens me when students don't want to see or accept the beautiful story - they are only focused on the - now - side of things. I've been told that, "It is because we're TEENAGERS!", in a very lighthearted moment. There is truth to that, I can't deny. I don't like manipulating teenagers or adults into thinking an idea is their own when it isn't. I'd rather spend my time encouraging them to learn the value of appreciating and understanding the importance of individual and group contributions to the success of the team and therefore, the program.

This is a great topic, as always.

Jane

wireties

26-02-2012, 17:41

Yes, however many students have been on the team for four years, and pass the information downwards. The students effectively mentor themselves.

I agree - note the original statement - "Older students pass on many things to younger students but the teachers and mentors are direct links to the past."

But where did the first set of students learn - when they were rookies? And things passed down from student to student will distort and morph over time without some absolute reference (the mentors education & experience - inside and outside of robotics).

Alex Chambers

26-02-2012, 22:30

I think that one of the best guidelines for the mentor student relationship can be found in the first mentoring guide

:Have the kids do as much work as possible

basically, i think that if a team could not possibly create a robot with out significant mentor help mentors should step in but if a team has the ability to build a "student built robot" then they should because I feel like one of the reasons I have been drawn to first and it has sparked my interest in engineering is the amount of work i have had to invest into the robot on my own with little assistance. I have had help from mentors in the past and whenever i have needed it it has been very much appreciated but i'm also grateful that on my team our mentors are willing to let the students "do as much work as possible" and this often means that the mentors deal with the team members with great restraint, evaluating our ideas, helping us solve problems that we cant solve, but that they also let us choose our own path and make our own mistakes. I feel that learning from my mistakes has helped me significantly in my development on the team and i am glad that my mentors have allowed me to struggle through my problems.

The things that heavily mentor influenced robots do for first are wonderful, they help innovate the way competition robots work, they expand the ability of first competitions to be innovative and interesting, and they allow other teams to learn from their designs. But i'm grateful that I have been on a very student oriented team, and i would not want my first experience to have followed any other path.