![]() |
Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Now that we've had a full season of Chairman's submissions, and experienced the full changes of the pilot feedback system, what are your thoughts? The new setup now includes:
So, what are your thoughts? Do you like it? Do you hate it? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? Were there unexpected benefits? And what direction do you think FIRST should consider moving next year with this? Previous discussion about the decision when it was announced here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=133343 FRC Blog post announcing the change here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...award-feedback |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
All of the other changes were excellent. No problems with any of those. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
After giving it a go this season and discussion with the team we preferred the feedback forms, mainly because we didn't use the mentor-in-room for a number of reasons.
We realized before the presentation that having a mentor observe would only add an "harder" step of guessing: 2014: Present -> Feedback Form -> Attempt to discern what more the judges wanted -> Improve presentation for next regional/year 2015: Present -> Mentor listens -> Mentor attempts to discern how presentation/answers could improve by trying to "read judges" -> Improve presentation for next regional/year Most of the improvements a mentor would see outside of "reading the judges" would be presentation flow, answers to questions, etc that we had been practicing and working on for weeks already (in our opinions). There wasn't a lot there that would become "newly apparent" to us. I can't imagine a situation where the mentor would be able to glean more than the students in how the presentation/answers could be improved, but then again we didn't send a mentor in. Between the 2 reasons above, concerns about the viewing mentor being able to keep a straight/neutral face through the presentation (if a line were missed or question were flubbed) as to not affect it, and other assorted issues, we decided to let the presenters go in the room and do their thing without the additional pressure. I think they could do away with the giant however-many category rubric (those never helped us anyway) and just have a few short written feedback questions like the ones in previous years.. Flexible presentation/question time was good. We aimed to have max time available for Q&A, but not having to hit 5:00 on the relative dot was much better for us this year. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Us at Chop Shop dislike the lack of feedback. An outsider's perspective on what is working and what isn't is great to have.
More often than not, it really helps knowing where we can focus our efforts in the off-season or if we're just totally missing the mark all together. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Most people that I've spoken to have pointed out the lack of feedback as a negative, and I have to agree, for many reasons. That being said, I attended the Chairman's Chat presentation at Championship and the same issue was brought up. Karthik responded that the Hall of Fame teams spoke to FIRST about the issue when the decision was first made and they were surprised that it was being considered an issue, as only one team besides the aforementioned Hall of Fame teams had spoken out by contacting FIRST itself.
When we take issue with a policy that FIRST implements, it is our duty as teams to speak out. Clearly, we all thought that everyone else was going to send an email about it and didn't bother doing it ourselves. The clear solution here is to voice our passion to FIRST. They aren't going to fix it if they don't know that it's a problem. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
In that vein, it may not be a bad idea to submit an organized grouping of feedback from teams regarding the policy change after experiencing it all the way through the season. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have the ability to give feedback to FIRST on all of their events, we get surveys on every event we attend. So, as a team, why does FIRST not provide feedback on how to make my team better? |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
It's also completely at odds with the feedback I got from Frank in which he was well aware that the lack of feedback was a problem (I received this feedback two distinct times, during build a week after the announcement was made and during a feedback session at Championships) In fact, I know that FIRST is being pushed to provide even more feedback. DL and Entrepreneurship were the top of my list but I'd like to see some form of feedback about the interviews conducted by judges. HQ has been made aware of this but there are a ton of logistical issues with implementing more feedback to teams. I'll tell you the same feedback I've said all along, it's a step backwards. I understand why the step was made but I hope that we can come up with a solution to those problems and give teams back their feedback. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
I believe that if as many teams as possible contact HQ and tell them about this, we can get feedback forms back for next year. So don't just stand there - email FIRST! To sum things up:
|
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
The current method is ridiculous. A team mentor is going to focus on how the presentation was presented, not the content of said presentation.
If I had it to do over again, I'd have a mentor from a friendly but separate team sit in our Chairman's presentation, and offer to do the same for their team. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
|
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
I've actually not found the feedback form to be very useful in previous years, but it was something...and I don't like that it was removed. I agree with those above who point out that they want feedback about the entire effort, not just the presentation. Prior to this year, our submissions have been rather weak, thus the usefulness of the feedback form may have something to do with the judges not wishing to be overly critical...I wish they would have been, though.
I planned to view my team's presentation at Palmetto just to offer an additional perspective while they honed the presentation for North Carolina - but the judges were not informed that my presence was permitted in addition to the team of three, thus it would have cost us one of the presentation team members. So we essentially received no feedback beyond the perceptions of the presenters themselves...which we always get. That part of it ended up working out for the better, because our presentation team completely re-did the presentation on their own anyway, and it was so creative and awesome that it actually brought tears to my eyes when they told me what they did! Summary - (1) bring back an enhanced feedback form that actually describes your strengths and weaknesses, and possibly even benchmarks where the judges considered your "performance" on a continuum that includes the "performance" of the winning team. (2) draft a single overall summary document and copy to all the teams that participated in chairman's with best practices seen and with observations that could use improvement. (3) Communicate rule changes to the judges better, so we all get to take advantage of these kinds of opportunities. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From my POV: Our presentation was on point from what we practiced. It was by far the best presentation we gave. The questions were pretty good feedback though, it pointed out a lot of things that we need to add on (as far as content) goes. I could see the judges start struggling to ask questions, which (being a judge before) is a decent indicator to me that we need deeper content. Quote:
I'm not sure how Chairman's judging works, but as a judge it takes a lot of extra effort to write down really really good feedback. IT's got to be constructive, highlight the good aspects of the team and provide suggestions for improvement. In the course of a competition....this is a lot of information to do for 30 teams. I cannot imagine having to do this perfectly for 50 to 60 teams at a FRC competition. So...personally, I was ok with this for this year. We weren't very competitive and I could take away what the judges were looking for. |
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure
I like the soft limit on the presentation. I like posting the winners' submissions. I like being able to have a non-speaking mentor in the room to observe. I am very disappointed by the removal of the feedback form.
I was our non-speaking mentor for our first Chairman's presentation and our Dean's List interviews. After discussing it with the presenters and nominees, I picked a spot to stand out of their field of view with a good line of sight to the judges and tried to vanish into the wall. I can give useful feedback to the Dean's List Nominees based on my experience conducting job interviews. For the Chairman's team, basically all I can do is take notes on the presentation, record what the judges asked and how the presenters responded, and attempt to face-read the judges. I can't give any objective feedback on the quality of our overall Chairman's submission. Depending on the judges and the event, the feedback form was of highly variable utility, but it was at least some outside feedback. I'd be happy to settle for one thing they liked and one area to improve, but we really need something. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:28. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi