Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseK
Last year we had a fairly large problem with communication across the entire team during the robot build season. There was the "inner loop" that included the mentors, faculty, and about 5 students that were always at every meeting as well as working on bits of robot outside the meetings. The outer loop were those that didn't even know our strategy for the game, or couldn't tell you anything about our robot without looking on a sheet, etc. To be on the build team and not know or understand anything about the build is pretty .... problematic.
This year we're making students say up front that they will commit to the team. With 10 minute quizes (mult. choice, easy and funny!) at the start of a meeting that pertain to the game, robot, and individual groups' statuses we're hoping that the students will at least start to see the connection that everything has to the team rather than what their one simple task is.
Robot building aside, there are some students that the mentors never see since they always do their work from 2-5pm whereas mentors show up around 5. Typically these are the web team, students who help with fundraising, etc. Without a leader such as the one we have, those students would have next to no interest in our program and eventually get left out of the team completely -- not because they have no value, but because there is no one to bridge the gap of communication.
So in essence, I think that no matter what, the lines of communication must begin with the central leader and be refined each year. It's one of those things everyone takes for granted when it's there and greatly misses when it's not.
|
Communications is very important.
I am seeing another sneaky problem in this and Pavan's post. Expectations. Do we expect everyone to get the same thing out of participating? If we do I think we limit team sizes or have trouble accepting the students and adults in the "outer loop"
Food for thought
