Quote:
Originally Posted by ttldomination
I'm curious about how you would reply to people who would say that this method fails to engage students at a higher level?
|
I wouldn't.
However, I will give a little more insight into the methods of my own team. We used to be a team where everyone got a voice, and often times, everyone got a vote (shudder). Then, we realized our robots weren't very good (every year, and declining) so we set out to change. We began to question why certain things needed input from the whole team, when a select few experienced individuals could manage it just fine. We realized that we spent more time talking, sharing, debating than actually designing or building anything, and even if we ever did reach a consensus that everyone was happy with, it was so late it the game that it all got cobbled together anyhow. The design details were purely vocal, speculative, and if we were lucky, poorly sketched on a whiteboard. Team meetings were woefully inefficient, with each person taking a turn to share what he or she did, in great detail. Most of the time, these details were irrelevant to a majority of the others listening. And while these meetings took place, work did not. When I became the lead mentor, I threw these meetings out the window, and now I just let people work. There are very few times that something needs to be addressed as a whole team, and when it does we do. But we do not make a daily or even weekly habit of it. A good leader does not need to frequently halt all work to gather his people to ensure that work is getting done. He will be walking the floor and he will know it as it's happening.
Our designs are now driven by logic, testing, and experience, not speculation, opinion, and feelings. You'd be amazed how much a team can improve once they do a little self-reflection.
Many teams (including past years of my own) have this "we learn from failure" philosophy that makes me just cringe. It builds a culture of students who think there will always be a next time, and that mistakes are always okay, and who accept lousy work because they are learning. To learn from failure is fine, but to do so without giving every possible effort to succeed is just wrong. And by every possible effort, I mean including the expertise of mentors.
Aww shoot, I guess I did end up responding... Anyhow, this horse has been well beaten, so let's steer the thread back on track as the OP intended.
Who or how is the whole robot envisioned while it's still in the preliminary or pieces or sub-assemblies design stage? Some teams (such as 118) seem to have a VERY integrated design that I'm sure must be envisioned as a whole before any part of it can start to be detailed.