Mentors on the team

[Alex Chambers]

Our team i very student oriented, we build the robot, we do the design, we do the programming, but we do have mentors to ask for help when we get in a bind and to check our ideas against to insure we don't do something foolish. However as my teammate pointed out many design ideas in first are not arrived at by students but rather by mentors or students who have had some contact with first for multiple years. This year our robotics team as usual was run by students and designed by students but some of our designs drew heavily on teams that we viewed at the national competition that were more mentor driven and as usual some ideas were discussed with mentors before being finalized. Still i am a firm believer that students should always be more involved in the robot then mentors in order to get the best learning experience from first. Don't get me wrong i respect and appreciate all our team's mentors and I don't hesitate to ask for help, but at the same time i expect them to, for the most part allow the students to be responsible for the robot and provide help only when they for-see disaster or are asked.

[wireties]

There is another angle on the mentor role that isn't mentioned often in this thread. Most (but not all) of the first tier teams have been around for a while. Why is that? I think that mentors and teachers help keep the "corporate" memory of the team. Older students pass on many things to younger students but the teachers and mentors are direct links to the past. And the past has value...

New students make the same mistakes again every year (as do young engineers). It is not a bad thing but an expected and reasonable occurrence. There is no stronger response from a mentor (or older student) than telling the student theirs is a great idea but we tried it in 200X and failed miserably and let us tell you why.

I've been with FRC1296 nine years now along side the same awesome teacher/sponsor. The continuity is valuable. Our "memory" is being reinforced with students (now with engineering & CS degrees) returning as mentors. I've had a lot of fun with the younger mentors this year.

Our students make all decisions but we mentors endeavor to make sure the decisions are based on solid science and math, analyzed and modeled where possible, and executed safely and productively. Sure, the mentors could make a more competitive robot but what fun would that be? It is great to to see the students innovate, master the design process, apply math and science and learn to use the tools. It works for us.

[Mark Sheridan]

I think its more of "the devil is in the details." I think my students came up with good ideas with very solid intuition and science. I found my role was more to translate their ideas into working models. Students don't know all the details, I am there to fill in the missing pieces.

For example, I don't expect new students to know the pros and cons of set screws. Its my responsibility to show if they need them, why they need them, how to properly to use them in future designs and situations to avoid them.

The physics calculations were handled by the mentors for my team. We try to show students that are interested but mostly its limited to senior students who are taking physics.

Sometimes this means, I have action items that can't be performed by a student but sometimes watching a mentor work through a calculation, through a CAD model or a laser cutter with worthwhile enough for a student.

[hipsterjr]

342 explains to the parents every year that over the coarse this ratio shift. Preseason/Week 1 it is 90%mentor 10% students as we teach the students. By week 6 it is 10% mentors and 90% students as they have learned the skills and take over the show. My the time regionals come, it is 99% students with the mentor stepping in only when absolutely needed or to give advice. That's why if you vistit 342's pit, most of the mentors are sitting in chairs .

[johnmaguire2013]

Originally Posted by Bill_B

Do they ever ask any questions of the mentors? If not, I'd find it unattractive to be on time myself. Is there a reason you didn't give a team number? Not that it matters much to me directly. I was wondering what their website looks like.

I'm sure they do, but not if they can help it. They try to exhaust all other possibilities first. I didn't mention the team because it's really not my place to do so. It's possible that I interpreted their team structure wrong, although we have shared a build space with them.

Additionally, if you've seen posts by me, I harp on websites. Their website is not made for the award though, and is a part of the school they are from's website. It serves to provide basic information to students interested in joining, etc.

[dsirovica]

Originally Posted by wireties

There is another angle on the mentor role that isn't mentioned often in this thread. Most (but not all) of the first tier teams have been around for a while. Why is that? I think that mentors and teachers help keep the "corporate" memory of the team. Older students pass on many things to younger students but the teachers and mentors are direct links to the past. And the past has value...

This is a very important point, and I'd like to take this further: What mechanisms does this program have to cumulatively add knowledge for the benefit of all teams in future seasons?

It would be really cool and powerful, if there were a mechanism to purify and grow knowledge using crowdsourcing. Kind of like a wikipedia for FIRST.

Maybe this ought to go into its own thread?

Dean

[wireties]

Originally Posted by johnmaguire2013

I'm sure they do, but not if they can help it. They try to exhaust all other possibilities first.

My company has a "2 hour rule" - if you spend more than 2 hours working on the same problem w/o progress you must take a break, consult a colleague, do something different to break the impasse. This is good advice on a robotics team with only 6 weeks to build the robot.

It is frustrating, unproductive and a poor learning experience to "exhaust all possibilities" before consulting a mentor. Most people learn using 2 of these 3 methods: reading, hearing, seeing/doing/experiencing. It is a rare student (of any kind) who can simply read about building a robot and go do it. Mentors can tell a student how to perform a task (thus the student hears it) or show them how to perform a task (thus the student sees it). Mentors make impossible tasks (for a typical isolated high school student) possible withing a 6-week window.

[RRLedford]

The mentor's role is different for every team situation. Not all teams are at a level where students can effectively take on all the responsibilities that must be handled to complete a successful build. I am in my third year mentoring a small team where most of the students have competing extra curricular activities.
We had no build sessions during finals week. We had much of team out of town for break the last four days of build.

We have no seniors and only six students that make most sessions. We have one capable electronics student and one capable programmer. I give these two students full control of those areas, and they need very little input from me. They get things done effectively on the required timeline. The rest of the team has to handle the design and mechanical assembly, but even on good days far too much energy gets wasted goofing around. On a good day for this group, serious focused effort & productivity is happening for maybe 50% of the 2-2.5 hours for our three weekday sessions a week. Attendance at our six hour Saturday sessions are barely 50% from other conflicts.

We consistently end up with a good design concept that is barely rushed to only partial assembly by deadline. No testing, No trouble shooting. No driving. No autonomous. We end up holding back critical unfinished systems to complete them. Then we have to finish building the robot in the pits, while barely making the inspection deadline. We have no practice scrimmages, since we barely pass inspection in time, as we resolve problems.

So, do I take a hands off approach and let them fail miserably? Or, do I pitch in with the build enough so that they can see enough results at competition to consider that the season was an overall success. The father of the student in charge of electronics also mentors, and he wants her to do well at competition. So, he also helps with the build and design considerations. We both would rather do less building and more mentoring, but that would result in a robot that would leave most students thinking, at the end of competition, that the season was an exercise in futility and waste of their time. The program would spiral down and be discontinued in a year or two, which happened previously, if we did not help build the bot.

We two mentors feel obligated to both the school's robotics program, and especially to those students who pour the greatest amount of their time and energy into the season's build effort, to ensure that some minimal level of robot performance is accomplished by the time competition arrives. If this means we have to help with build more than we prefer, then so be it. As long as the students still feel like it is their robot, not the mentor's robot, and they are satisfied with how their season turns out, I am fine fit this approach. As I work to expand the team, and the maturity and skills of its members, I feel that this approach is essential for this stage of its development. I look forward to reaching the stage in our program where "mentors do not build", but right now, this philosophy will not be helpful.

-Dick Ledford

[johnmaguire2013]

Originally Posted by wireties

My company has a "2 hour rule" - if you spend more than 2 hours working on the same problem w/o progress you must take a break, consult a colleague, do something different to break the impasse. This is good advice on a robotics team with only 6 weeks to build the robot.

It is frustrating, unproductive and a poor learning experience to "exhaust all possibilities" before consulting a mentor. Most people learn using 2 of these 3 methods: reading, hearing, seeing/doing/experiencing. It is a rare student (of any kind) who can simply read about building a robot and go do it. Mentors can tell a student how to perform a task (thus the student hears it) or show them how to perform a task (thus the student sees it). Mentors make impossible tasks (for a typical isolated high school student) possible withing a 6-week window.

Yes, however many students have been on the team for four years, and pass the information downwards. The students effectively mentor themselves.

Originally Posted by dsirovica

It would be really cool and powerful, if there were a mechanism to purify and grow knowledge using crowdsourcing. Kind of like a wikipedia for FIRST.

As in the FIRSTwiki?

[coldfusion1279]

I used to be a student on our team, and I used to be proud that we could hang with the big boys with a "student-built bot."

I didn't like certain teams because they had a lot of engineering help. I didn't think it was fair. Was I jealous? Yes, but I wouldn't admit it.

Now I realize 8 seasons later, as our team grows, and parents, sponsors and other adults get involved, that I had been looking at the benefits of FIRST from a weird perspective. Not the wrong perspective, because there's nothing wrong with students who are proud they built a robot with minimal guidance.

It was hard for me to see the type of learning environment that the heavily sponsored and mentored teams have from the outside looking in.

IMHO, learning is more efficient by watching a teacher do something correctly, rather than struggling mightily to make something flawed perform flawlessly.

[JaneYoung]

Sometimes, we are good at passing down the information and experience of the team. Sometimes, we are really horrible at it. Helping to make that a priority within the team, strengthens it, sustains its productivity, and provides consistency in team performance. This is an area that I address with 418 each year and it is an area that I stress when working with other teams. That it should be a part of our training and our organizational process. In my opinion, this is why our long term mentors are key members and leaders of the team... because we are the vessels that hold the knowledge and experience over time. As our students and parents move on and new students, parents, and mentors become a part of our historical tapestry that we are constantly weaving, we are there to help the beautiful story unfold and be told. It is also why alumni are so very important to the team. They are woven into the tapestry and hold the stories of their time and experiences with the team.

It saddens me when students don't want to see or accept the beautiful story - they are only focused on the - now - side of things. I've been told that, "It is because we're TEENAGERS!", in a very lighthearted moment. There is truth to that, I can't deny. I don't like manipulating teenagers or adults into thinking an idea is their own when it isn't. I'd rather spend my time encouraging them to learn the value of appreciating and understanding the importance of individual and group contributions to the success of the team and therefore, the program.

This is a great topic, as always.

Jane

[wireties]

Originally Posted by johnmaguire2013

Yes, however many students have been on the team for four years, and pass the information downwards. The students effectively mentor themselves.

I agree - note the original statement - "Older students pass on many things to younger students but the teachers and mentors are direct links to the past."

But where did the first set of students learn - when they were rookies? And things passed down from student to student will distort and morph over time without some absolute reference (the mentors education & experience - inside and outside of robotics).

[Alex Chambers]

I think that one of the best guidelines for the mentor student relationship can be found in the first mentoring guide

:Have the kids do as much work as possible

basically, i think that if a team could not possibly create a robot with out significant mentor help mentors should step in but if a team has the ability to build a "student built robot" then they should because I feel like one of the reasons I have been drawn to first and it has sparked my interest in engineering is the amount of work i have had to invest into the robot on my own with little assistance. I have had help from mentors in the past and whenever i have needed it it has been very much appreciated but i'm also grateful that on my team our mentors are willing to let the students "do as much work as possible" and this often means that the mentors deal with the team members with great restraint, evaluating our ideas, helping us solve problems that we cant solve, but that they also let us choose our own path and make our own mistakes. I feel that learning from my mistakes has helped me significantly in my development on the team and i am glad that my mentors have allowed me to struggle through my problems.

The things that heavily mentor influenced robots do for first are wonderful, they help innovate the way competition robots work, they expand the ability of first competitions to be innovative and interesting, and they allow other teams to learn from their designs. But i'm grateful that I have been on a very student oriented team, and i would not want my first experience to have followed any other path.