Go to Post "Mentors Only Work When Being Calibrated". - Calvin Hartley [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Competition > Awards > Chairman's Award
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Closed Thread
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 12:09
Hot_Copper_Frog's Avatar
Hot_Copper_Frog Hot_Copper_Frog is offline
Public Relations Mentor
AKA: Megan
FRC #0503 (Frog Force)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 69
Hot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond repute
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:
  • Regional and District Championship winners have their essay/executive summary and chairman’s video posted online. It was strongly encouraged that winning teams submit a practice presentation video as well, though not every team took part in that.
  • The team is allowed an extra two minutes to present, if they so choose (5-7 minutes), though the 10 minuted total limit stayed the same.
  • A mentor was allowed to sit in on the presentation session without counting against the 3-presenter limit. The mentor was theoretically allowed to film the session, but from what I understand that wasn’t true at all events.
  • No formal feedback from the judges at any event.

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
__________________
FLL Team Dark Matter 2002-2005 Student
FRC HOT Team 67 2006-2009 Student
FRC Superior Roboworks 857 & The Copperbots 2586 2009-2013 Mentor
FRC Frog Force 503 2014-Present Public Relations Mentor

Michigan Technological University Alumna
Air Quality Scientist
FIRST Enthusiast
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 12:25
Jay O'Donnell's Avatar
Jay O'Donnell Jay O'Donnell is online now
Division by Pirates
FRC #0229 (Division by Zero)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Potsdam, NY/Londonderry, NH
Posts: 1,345
Jay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond reputeJay O'Donnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
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:
  • Regional and District Championship winners have their essay/executive summary and chairman’s video posted online. It was strongly encouraged that winning teams submit a practice presentation video as well, though not every team took part in that.
  • The team is allowed an extra two minutes to present, if they so choose (5-7 minutes), though the 10 minuted total limit stayed the same.
  • A mentor was allowed to sit in on the presentation session without counting against the 3-presenter limit. The mentor was theoretically allowed to film the session, but from what I understand that wasn’t true at all events.
  • No formal feedback from the judges at any event.

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
I very much disliked not getting a feedback form. It's the only real way to know how to improve your team. Having a mentor in the room only helps you get better with your presentation skills, it doesn't help the team as a whole move forward. How are we supposed to continue moving forward as a community to change the world if we don't know how to improve ourselves?

All of the other changes were excellent. No problems with any of those.
__________________
Student on Team 1058 (2012-2015)
Mentor on Team 229 (2016-Present)
Writer for Blue Alliance Blog
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 12:27
Steven Donow Steven Donow is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scooby
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,335
Steven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Regional and District Championship winners have their essay/executive summary and chairman’s video posted online. It was strongly encouraged that winning teams submit a practice presentation video as well, though not every team took part in that.
This was nice, and it'll definitely help teams in the future.

Quote:
The team is allowed an extra two minutes to present, if they so choose (5-7 minutes), though the 10 minuted total limit stayed the same.
This is perfectly acceptable and just plain makes sense to not have 5 minutes be a super-hard limit.

Quote:
A mentor was allowed to sit in on the presentation session without counting against the 3-presenter limit. The mentor was theoretically allowed to film the session, but from what I understand that wasn’t true at all events.
This is a good change, although I heard absolutely nothing all year from any source about the mentor being allowed to film the session.

Quote:
No formal feedback from the judges at any event.
I still just don't understand this. There's absolutely no legitimate way for a team to gauge how a judge ACTUALLY felt the team did on not just their presentation, but their essay as well. Getting to see who 'beat' (in quotes because FIRST is trying to push not viewing Chairman's as a competition...) you is not an acceptable form of feedback at all. It doesn't tell you what your team's weakness was; and gives nothing for a team to build on in order to improve at presenting their material.
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 12:29
BigJ BigJ is offline
Registered User
AKA: Josh P.
FRC #1675 (Ultimate Protection Squad)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 947
BigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond reputeBigJ has a reputation beyond repute
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.
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 12:34
Dan Petrovic's Avatar
Dan Petrovic Dan Petrovic is offline
Got my degree and ready for more!
FRC #0166 (Chop Shop)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Merrimack NH
Posts: 1,668
Dan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond reputeDan Petrovic has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko Ed View Post
The sign applause was definately one of the best moments I had ever witnessed at a FIRST event.
Who knew silence could be so loud?

Mayhem in Merrimack hosts: 2005-2016 - Week Zero hosts in partnership with FIRST HQ: 2014-2016
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 12:47
Riverdance's Avatar
Riverdance Riverdance is offline
Mentor
AKA: Beth
FRC #5686 (Wirecats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Rookie Year: 2013
Location: Avon, CT
Posts: 62
Riverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud ofRiverdance has much to be proud of
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.
__________________
FRC 5686 Wirecats (Mentor 2015-???)
Hartford 2016: Alliance Captains/Semifinalists
Waterbury 2016: District Event Winnners
Hartford 2015: Rookie All-Star Award
Waterbury 2015: Rookie Inspiration Award

FRC 1124 ÜberBots (Student 2013-15)
FIRST Championship 2015: Hopper Division Quarterfinalists
NE District Champs 2015: Quality Award
Hartford 2015: Team Spirit Award
UMass Dartmouth 2015: Quality Award
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:03
Hot_Copper_Frog's Avatar
Hot_Copper_Frog Hot_Copper_Frog is offline
Public Relations Mentor
AKA: Megan
FRC #0503 (Frog Force)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Novi, MI
Posts: 69
Hot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond reputeHot_Copper_Frog has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
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.
That's interesting. I know on my part, I wasn't aware of the changes until they were already implemented as policy. Looks like I need to keep a closer eye on what's happening at an organizational level.

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.
__________________
FLL Team Dark Matter 2002-2005 Student
FRC HOT Team 67 2006-2009 Student
FRC Superior Roboworks 857 & The Copperbots 2586 2009-2013 Mentor
FRC Frog Force 503 2014-Present Public Relations Mentor

Michigan Technological University Alumna
Air Quality Scientist
FIRST Enthusiast

Last edited by Hot_Copper_Frog : 29-04-2015 at 13:03. Reason: Words are hard
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:04
ehochstein's Avatar
ehochstein ehochstein is offline
Coach, Volunteer & Mentor
AKA: Evan Hochstein
FTC #5943 (ESGM)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Bloomington, Minnesota
Posts: 933
ehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant futureehochstein has a brilliant future
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
  • Regional and District Championship winners have their essay/executive summary and chairman’s video posted online. It was strongly encouraged that winning teams submit a practice presentation video as well, though not every team took part in that.
I love being able to read all of the essays and executive summaries that teams submit! I would really like to be able to see more of the winning teams' presentations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
[*]The team is allowed an extra two minutes to present, if they so choose (5-7 minutes), though the 10 minuted total limit stayed the same. [/list]
This change did not effect us all that much. However, I really like having the breathing room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
[*]A mentor was allowed to sit in on the presentation session without counting against the 3-presenter limit. The mentor was theoretically allowed to film the session, but from what I understand that wasn’t true at all events.[/list]
I believe that this was a neutral change, I don't really have a reason as to why I liked it or why I didn't like it. It really depends on what individual teams want, I know some teams who did not want a mentor in the room and other teams who did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
[*]No formal feedback from the judges at any event.[/list]
I have no words for how disappointed I continue to be over feedback not being provided. At both the FTC and FRC levels, I find that feedback is key to improving teams around the world.

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?
__________________
Minnesota FIRST Senior Mentor | 2013-?

Stratasys Applications Engineering Technician | 2016-?

2009 Regional Win – 2470 @ 10k Lakes (Thanks 2826 and 1714)
2013 WFFA Recipient – 2470 @ 10K Lakes
2016 Ri3D: 'Snow Problem Reveal
2017 Ri3D: 'Snow Problem Reveal

The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the author and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of any organization the author is affiliated with.
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:18
Andrew Schreiber Andrew Schreiber is offline
Joining the 900 Meme Team
FRC #0079
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Misplaced Michigander
Posts: 4,066
Andrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond reputeAndrew Schreiber has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
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.
I question this. I know for a fact I contacted FIRST (in my capacities as a Judge Advisor, Planning Committee member, and mentor) and I find it very hard to believe we were the only ones.

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.
__________________




.
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:21
Jacob Bendicksen's Avatar
Jacob Bendicksen Jacob Bendicksen is offline
Figuring out what's next
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 769
Jacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond reputeJacob Bendicksen has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
  • Regional and District Championship winners have their essay/executive summary and chairman’s video posted online. It was strongly encouraged that winning teams submit a practice presentation video as well, though not every team took part in that.
  • The team is allowed an extra two minutes to present, if they so choose (5-7 minutes), though the 10 minuted total limit stayed the same.
  • A mentor was allowed to sit in on the presentation session without counting against the 3-presenter limit. The mentor was theoretically allowed to film the session, but from what I understand that wasn’t true at all events.
  • No formal feedback from the judges at any event.
  • Love it. It encourages accountability in the submission, since teams know that the community can and will read their submissions, and it's a great resource for less experienced Chairman's teams. This is pretty clearly a great change.
  • The extra two minutes was great for us - we have a lot to say, and it gave us a little more time to say it. Nice to have more space to convey your message. Less Q&A could sometimes hurt though.
  • I'll combine these last two points. I'm very opposed to these two changes, especially since the first was used to justify the second. Here's my take: our head mentor attended all three presentations that we gave, at the district, district championship, and championship level. He's awesome - the team wouldn't exist without him, and he's been a valuable source of feedback for the presentation team all year. That being said, my presentation partners and I know the presentation like the backs of our hands, and as a result, by the time we present, the amount of presentation feedback that we need is minimal. The feedback that we need is feedback from the judges, outlining our strengths and weaknesses from their perspectives, and since our mentor, as great as he is, is not a judge, we cannot get this kind of feedback with the current system. That's all there is to it - mentors provide great presentation feedback, but since they aren't judges, they can't give us judge-specific feedback, which is what we need in order to improve.

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:
  • Great
  • Great
  • Needs to change
__________________
jacobbendicksen.com | @jacobbendicksen

Yale University Class of 2020

Team 1540 | 2012-2016
7 Chairman's Awards, 6 other awards, 2015 Dean's List Finalist, 1 event win, 2 finalist finishes. Thanks for an amazing ride.
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:21
Taylor's Avatar
Taylor Taylor is offline
Professor of Thinkology, ThD
AKA: @taylorstem
FRC #3487 (Red Pride Robotics)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA 46227
Posts: 4,599
Taylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond reputeTaylor has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________
Hi!
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:23
wilsonmw04's Avatar
wilsonmw04 wilsonmw04 is offline
Coach
FRC #1086 (Blue Cheese)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Midlothian, VA
Posts: 1,887
wilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond reputewilsonmw04 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverdance View Post
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.
I question this as well. I know that my team contacted FIRST about this and begged them to reconsider.
__________________
Currently: Coach FRC 1086/FTC 93
2006-2011 Coach FRC 2106/FTC 35
If you come to a FRC event to see a robot competition, you are missing the point.
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 13:24
Qbot2640's Avatar
Qbot2640 Qbot2640 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Terry McHugh
FRC #2640 (Hotbotz)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Rookie Year: 2012
Location: Reidsville, NC
Posts: 473
Qbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond reputeQbot2640 has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________

2012 Palmetto Regional Winners (Thanks 2059, 2815, and 287).
2012 Newton 14th Seed
2013 Chesapeake Regional Imagery Award Winners
2014 North Carolina Regional Imagery Award Winners
2014 Greater DC Regional Team Spirit Award Winners
2015 North Carolina Regional Finalists (Thanks 3971 and 587)
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 14:47
popnbrown's Avatar
popnbrown popnbrown is offline
FIRST 5125 HOTH Lead Mentor
AKA: Sravan S
FRC #5125 (Hawks on the Horizon)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 367
popnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond reputepopnbrown has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Pilot Year Review: New Chairman's Award Feedback Structure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Copper_Frog View Post
N
Regional and District Championship winners have their essay/executive summary and chairman’s video posted online. It was strongly encouraged that winning teams submit a practice presentation video as well, though not every team took part in that.
This is by far the best change. It's extremely eye-opening to see what we can try to achieve.

Quote:
The team is allowed an extra two minutes to present, if they so choose (5-7 minutes), though the 10 minuted total limit stayed the same.
We tend to talk a lot, so this was definitely useful.

Quote:
A mentor was allowed to sit in on the presentation session without counting against the 3-presenter limit. The mentor was theoretically allowed to film the session, but from what I understand that wasn’t true at all events.
I was initially very into this, but then started to think I may be putting too much pressure or may cause an issue, so I left it up to the students if I should sit in there or not. We decided that it would ultimately help. However, at this point I already had a pretty good understanding that our content wasn't as strong as potential teams because of the first change.

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:
No formal feedback from the judges at any event.
I don't really know how to feel. I've been a big advocate of formal feedback for FTC, and I see the other side of the discussion. It sucks because a lot of pressure is put upon the Judge Advisor or Person-In-Charge, to field any issues or concerns that may come up. It only takes one bad apple (team or mentor) to yell at a Person-In-Charge for this to happen (which I'm sure is what happened).

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.
__________________
I am an employee of FIRST. However, the postings on this site are of my own perspective as a FIRST mentor and volunteer and do not necessarily reflect the views of FIRST.

FIRST Team 5125 Hawks on the Horizon Lead Mentor
FRC Team 4096 Ctrl-Z Former Mentor
FTC Team 5203 #19@! Former Mentor
FRC Team 1403 Cougar Robotics Alumni
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 29-04-2015, 14:51
vhcook's Avatar
vhcook vhcook is online now
Reader of Things
AKA: Victoria
FRC #1939 (Kuh-nig-its)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 546
vhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond reputevhcook has a reputation beyond repute
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.
__________________


Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:28.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi