Quote:
Originally Posted by dlavery
Oh, really? I, not Dean, am the one that has made the point during the kick-off broadcast that teams choosing to participate in FIRST without professional mentors to work with their teams are missing the point of the program. I find your counter-assertion intriguing. I would be quite interested in learning how I, or Dean, or Woodie, am all wrong and missing the point of FIRST.
.
|
Mr. Lavery... I'm not sure I understand at all. Your first statement points out that you were the one to make the comments, and suggests that "Molten" was in the wrong for suggesting that it was Dean, but the last statement leads me to believe that you expressed just that: yourself, Dean, and Woody are all in full agreement on the subject.
I believe that any person who states that any specific non-extreme team composition
is or
is not truly in the spirit of FIRST is, himself, missing the point. I will hold fast to my statement regardless of what that person has done or who he is... Everyone needs to be able to take a step back and examine everything that they say impartially. To do otherwise is bullheaded.
More to the point:
It is my opinion that it is up to each team, and each team alone to make the decision for itself. During my time on team 306, we only had a mentor coach during one round, in one year, and I would not have it any other way. Our student coaches had access to a wealth of information that they would not have otherwise. There is no better teacher than experience. Any adult coach can explain the basic strategies of a given FIRST game to a student. Without the student being in the box, and seeing for him or her self exactly how that theory applies in the real world, they have no way of gaining a true understanding. The only way to do that is through Exposure. Which is exactly why we let every student who wished to stand in the coach box do just that. During real matches, that mattered. I have seen NUMEROUS successful, well sponsored teams that use mentor coaches, and do very well for themselves. On the other hand, I have seen numerous drive teams that were afraid to stray from the exact punctuation of their mentor coach's word. I've seen mentor coaches step forward and grab controls when the driver didn't do as he or she was told, and I've seen drivers in tears.
It's called a drive TEAM for a reason, and if an adult coach is using the students as an autonomous extension of himself in the booth, just because the rules prevent him from being a driver... then in my opinion there is something terribly wrong. As I said before, however... Neither extreme is correct. The drive team that takes no input from a coaching mentor is just as poor as the drive team that takes all of its input from one. As I've said before, moderation is key.
Also, according to the FIRST mission statement, it is the job of FIRST "programs" "to foster well rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership." If you ask me, all of those things sound like the job of the coach. In this case, why
not let the student learn from hands on experiences exactly what works and what does not?
If your answer was "A shiny gold medallion, and a Trophy!", then you are missing my point entirely.
And one more point that I'd like to talk about. Earlier in this thread it was said that
Quote:
First off, FIRST's primary mission is to "inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership."
While learning may be part of the way your team achieves that goal, FIRST isn't "about learning." The word learning isn't even in their mission statement.
|
This statement doesn't make any sense to me either. The actual word "Learning" isn't in the statement, but everyone with a fifth grade vocabulary should know what a synonym is. To
"Inspire young people to be science and technology leaders" is to inspire young people to become something they currently aren't, through the entire learning experience. Learning is the core of both science and technology, and if you have forgotten that, they you need to take a long hard look at exactly why you are in this field.
"Engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills" So, putting them through mentor based programs that teach (yes, build in this sentence means teach) science, engineering, and technology skills.
"that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership." In this statement, too... there is mention of learning. The word foster means to advance or cultivate, and when applied to the terms in the above sentence, cannot be taken to mean anything else.
You simply cannot say that the mission statement says nothing about learning. It is referenced in almost every line. It isn't simply part of the way your team realizes their goal, it is the only one mentioned in the mission statement.