Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

I can confirm that the HOF teams as a whole agree that providing feedback on the Chairman's Award presentations is important.

One of the things we are proposing to Frank, is how we can be involved in the feedback process. With further discussions to take place and hopefully soon, I hope that the feedback can be implemented once again, whether it stays the same or in some revised format.

As a team that won the HOF in 2011, one of the most important critical factors that helped us improve year after year, was that feedback.

What I am very happy about despite no formal feedback process this past season, are teams taking the initiative to have peer to peer reviews with other teams that have won it in the past.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

I tend to be data driven. If a team beats me, I'd like to know in what areas and by how much. It allows me to set goals for next time around. FLL does this with their review sheets with weighted scoring and comments. I believe FRC should move to the same model where different aspects of chairmans are weighted and scored. Numbers will never completely capture all the intangible portions of the award, but it still is priceless feedback for teams.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

Why not 'crowd source' the feedback? Since you can post everything, a post on CD asking for others (esp. HoF teams) to provide feedback, either publicly on CD or privately is entirely within reason. You might also get some judges to provide feedback in a less time pressured context. You should also be able to at least audio record the presentation with a smartphone to get the Q&A.

I clearly understand the desire for judge feedback. *I also understand how difficult it is for judges to provide quality feedback, especially if there are a lot of teams. In MN, you get 10 points toward State Tourney qualification just for applying for Chairmans. Not applying moves you down about 10 or so slots in the rankings. Winning Chairman's automatically qualifies you for the State tournament. This was done to incent teams to apply, but it does mean there are far more applicants now. Prior to the first state tourney in 2012, our team was at a Duluth regional where only 5 teams applied.

* I've never been an FRC judge but have been a debate judge and basically had about 5-7 minutes to write feedback for four kids other than what I wrote during the debate-- repeat four times during the day. I also had to take notes on the content of the debate arguments at the same time to assess which side won. It was very stressful. I can't imagine doing the similar for 20-30 or more teams applying at a 63 team regional. Some judges would find a reason not to return the next year.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

This was suggested at the Chairman's Chat in St. Louis, and the Judge Advisor there (I'm forgetting his name) said that the judges were specifically forbidden to do this. It seems like a great idea, but apparently it puts the judges in a pretty awkward position, so I'm not sure that it's the best course of action. That being said, I like your idea of crowd-sourcing the feedback - could be a great way to get feedback if some teams are willing to devote the time.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

I personally liked the system, but I have nothing to compare it to. This is our team's first year submitting chairmans and the three of us that presented were all freshman.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

I don't know the rules, but maybe it would not be an issue for a Chairman's judge to provide feedback to a team that they have not and will not be officially judging that year.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

Originally I was not a fan that teams would not be receiving feedback. For the most part our feedback over the years was telling us that we were just too young and our presentation was lacking in 2012 & 2013 and after focusing on the presentation along with another year of growth we finally won it at the district level in 2014. Just by having a mentor in the room we could have learned that our presentation wasn't the best and to a degree we knew it wasn't ready in 2012/2013.

After a season of really contemplating what the Chairmans award means and how a lot of teams go about receiving their feedback forms I partially agree with not receiving feedback at the district and regional level. The Chairmans award shouldn't be viewed as a metric sheet that if teams work to get high marks in certain areas or cater their off-season work towards areas they received low scores on. If a team wants to compete for the Chairmans award it needs to be a part of their team culture and they need to want to do their activities and outreach because they want to not because the sheet says they need to.

For teams presenting at the World Championship I would agree feedback should be provided. These are the role model teams in FIRST who do more than just focus on improving their team they are impacting their communities and the FIRST programs in them in powerful ways and continue to do so even after they become HOF teams.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

That's actually a really good idea. I might recommend to my team that this be implemented in the future!

To reflect on the changes, the time extension was helpful but not actually followed. At champs, the presenters walked in, introduced themselves, and stood there for a few moments before the judges said "We're starting the timers whenever you're ready". This was confusing because we were under the impression that the timers started when you walked in. After the presentation the judges wasted time asking if the members wanted to sit down, complimenting the presentation, and deciding who was to ask a question first, all while the timer was running. That being said, our team realized that next year we need to dedicate more of that time limit to questions, or else address major questions in the presentation instead of waiting for them to be asked. Additionally, the extra mentor was an opportunity our team found useless for the points mentioned earlier in this thread.


Like everyone else says, the lack of feedback was upsetting. No further lamentations are needed.


As a side note, the presentations rooms were very close together and it's understandable that teams wanted to cheer on their presenters afterwards. But as a presenter, it's hard enough to maintain focus with the pits below the rooms, let alone loud cheering just outside the door for sustained periods of time. Just please be considerate of other teams presenting.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

As Frank mentioned in today's blog, the Chairman's Feedback is returning for the 2016 season! You can take a look at the form here: http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/d...edbackForm.pdf

Please note that feedback is being given out on an "opt-in" basis. If your team wants feedback on your submission you need to fill in your team information on the form and provide it to the judges. Hopefully teams will take advantage of this new opportunity and use it to iterate and improve their submissions.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

This is great news! Thanks to all that made this happen. (HoF teams, I think?)

Does anyone know why this is a thing, rather than giving feedback to all teams by default? Also, will teams submitting at the FIRST Championship have the option of receiving feedback there?

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

from Frank's Blog: thank you, Karthik, for helping to bring this back. It is a much needed tool for teams.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

I really like the overhaul of the feedback form. I don't think that's a really edgy opinion, but I never thought the assigning of a 1-10 value for various aspects of the submission was anything but largely arbitrary.

I think the last question might have more potential if it was split into 2 or 3 different questions, but that move could as easily be unhelpful to all parties.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

If you've never tried writing feedback on things... it's REALLY freaking hard. Opt In means the judges only have to do it for folks who really want it and will use the info.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

Where were the Chairman's Essay and Executive Summary posted? I guess I missed that detail.

Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
 

The 2015 Regional and District Championship Chairman's Award winner essays/videos/presentations can be found here: http://www.firstinspires.org/node/4881