Value in Failure vs. Value in Success

[Ginger Power]

I have been thinking to myself (and debating with others) the value of failure vs. the value of success. I don't think that anybody will question that both hold great value in the learning process for students and mentors alike. What I've been asking is how do we as mentors balance these methods of learning? Mentors generally have the power to intervene in students' struggles and take away the lessons that can be learned from failure, but at the same time, save the student from frustration and give them a new skill with which they can create bigger and more exciting problems to be solved. Obviously there is no "correct", one-size-fits-all answer, but there are surely more successful, and less successful methods.

Here is my take on the issue:
My parents tell me that I am supposed to go to the boy's bathroom and guide me through the process. I successfully do it over and over and never have an issue. I have succeeded in learning which bathroom to use: value in success.
But maybe one day I'm tired, or knowing me, not paying full attention and I mistakenly walk into the girls bathroom (something I'd be willing to bet most of us have done). The embarrassment and humiliation will cause me never to forget to check the sign before walking into the bathroom: value in failure.

Long story short, value that comes from success is generally easy to come by when it's handed to you, but the value that comes from failure has a more permanent and lasting effect.

On the other hand:
The strategy team is debating what direction the team should go for the year and has hit a major road block. They can't figure out what to do and the argument is getting heated. Mentor William Beatty has this great game-breaking idea that he proposes to the students. They can all now move on and begin implementing the idea: value in success.
Meanwhile many other teams who resent mentor-built-robots allow the students to debate until their voices are hoarse. After a week or two they finally agree and have a student crafted strategy. They end the year as an average team and all agree the students need to be quicker in deciding the strategy next year: value in failure.

Long story short, value that comes from failure takes more time and often leads to fewer new discoveries and experiences (less build time and prototyping time in the above example). Value from success often allows for more and greater success and failure opportunities since it can be done in a quick way.

So basically I typed all that to say I have no idea how to balance out success and failure. I think this is a question that every mentor and team should answer for themselves. I also think it is a question that drives a lot of the mentor-built vs. student-built debate (please don't let it turn into one of those). As a mentor going into my second year, and trying to be the most effective mentor that I can, I'd be really interested to hear how others have answered this question for themselves in the past.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I have been thinking to myself (and debating with others) the value of failure vs. the value of success. I don't think that anybody will question that both hold great value in the learning process for students and mentors alike. What I've been asking is how do we as mentors balance these methods of learning? Mentors generally have the power to intervene in students' struggles and take away the lessons that can be learned from failure, but at the same time, save the student from frustration and give them a new skill with which they can create bigger and more exciting problems to be solved. Obviously there is no "correct", one-size-fits-all answer, but there are surely more successful, and less successful methods.

Here is my take on the issue:
My parents tell me that I am supposed to go to the boy's bathroom and guide me through the process. I successfully do it over and over and never have an issue. I have succeeded in learning which bathroom to use: value in success.
But maybe one day I'm tired, or knowing me, not paying full attention and I mistakenly walk into the girls bathroom (something I'd be willing to bet most of us have done). The embarrassment and humiliation will cause me never to forget to check the sign before walking into the bathroom: value in failure.

Long story short, value that comes from success is generally easy to come by when it's handed to you, but the value that comes from failure has a more permanent and lasting effect.

On the other hand:
The strategy team is debating what direction the team should go for the year and has hit a major road block. They can't figure out what to do and the argument is getting heated. Mentor William Beatty has this great game-breaking idea that he proposes to the students. They can all now move on and begin implementing the idea: value in success.
Meanwhile many other teams who resent mentor-built-robots allow the students to debate until their voices are hoarse. After a week or two they finally agree and have a student crafted strategy. They end the year as an average team and all agree the students need to be quicker in deciding the strategy next year: value in failure.

Long story short, value that comes from failure takes more time and often leads to fewer new discoveries and experiences (less build time and prototyping time in the above example). Value from success often allows for more and greater success and failure opportunities since it can be done in a quick way.

So basically I typed all that to say I have no idea how to balance out success and failure. I think this is a question that every mentor and team should answer for themselves. I also think it is a question that drives a lot of the mentor-built vs. student-built debate (please don't let it turn into one of those). As a mentor going into my second year, and trying to be the most effective mentor that I can, I'd be really interested to hear how others have answered this question for themselves in the past.

Interesting topic.
I'll add a personal example:
In 2012, we went to the Granite State Regional in New Hamshire during Week 1. We couldn't shoot accurately or even lower a bridge correctly. We ended up not getting picked at a regional. We realized through this experience that the robot needed some major retooling to succeed- Value in Failure.

A few weeks later, we attended the Connecticut Regional. Our shot accuracy wasn't much better the first day, but our bridge lowering and balancing was much better, and that night we decided to switch strategies and become a feeder robot. We ended up getting selected by 195 and 181 and winning the Connecticut Regional. Through this, we learned that a role player could be valuable. Value in Success.

We then attended the Championship event in the Archimedes division. I got a chance to watch the amazing 2012 Archimedes final matches, some of the best matches ever in FRC history. I got to look at 67's robot up close and I said "Wow, that robot is so much simpler than ours." Through looking at their robot (as well as a few others), I learned the value of simplicity and elegance in robot design. This is value from neither success nor failure- I'd call it Value in Inspiration.

I think teams can use all of these, and they're all effective means of gaining value from the FIRST Program.

[jajabinx124]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

I have been thinking to myself (and debating with others) the value of failure vs. the value of success. I don't think that anybody will question that both hold great value in the learning process for students and mentors alike. What I've been asking is how do we as mentors balance these methods of learning? Mentors generally have the power to intervene in students' struggles and take away the lessons that can be learned from failure, but at the same time, save the student from frustration and give them a new skill with which they can create bigger and more exciting problems to be solved. Obviously there is no "correct", one-size-fits-all answer, but there are surely more successful, and less successful methods.

Here is my take on the issue:
My parents tell me that I am supposed to go to the boy's bathroom and guide me through the process. I successfully do it over and over and never have an issue. I have succeeded in learning which bathroom to use: value in success.
But maybe one day I'm tired, or knowing me, not paying full attention and I mistakenly walk into the girls bathroom (something I'd be willing to bet most of us have done). The embarrassment and humiliation will cause me never to forget to check the sign before walking into the bathroom: value in failure.

Long story short, value that comes from success is generally easy to come by when it's handed to you, but the value that comes from failure has a more permanent and lasting effect.

On the other hand:
The strategy team is debating what direction the team should go for the year and has hit a major road block. They can't figure out what to do and the argument is getting heated. Mentor William Beatty has this great game-breaking idea that he proposes to the students. They can all now move on and begin implementing the idea: value in success.
Meanwhile many other teams who resent mentor-built-robots allow the students to debate until their voices are hoarse. After a week or two they finally agree and have a student crafted strategy. They end the year as an average team and all agree the students need to be quicker in deciding the strategy next year: value in failure.

Long story short, value that comes from failure takes more time and often leads to fewer new discoveries and experiences (less build time and prototyping time in the above example). Value from success often allows for more and greater success and failure opportunities since it can be done in a quick way.

So basically I typed all that to say I have no idea how to balance out success and failure. I think this is a question that every mentor and team should answer for themselves. I also think it is a question that drives a lot of the mentor-built vs. student-built debate (please don't let it turn into one of those). As a mentor going into my second year, and trying to be the most effective mentor that I can, I'd be really interested to hear how others have answered this question for themselves in the past.

While I can't answer some parts of your questions, I'll talk a bit about success, failure, and how humans learn from both.

The former and late President of India, Abdul Kalam, viewed the word "fail" as an acronym: First Attempt In Learning. (Most of the time failure is a first attempt in learning). Just something I thought I would throw out there. Humans tend to learn more from failure because after experiencing failure, their mindset can change. The likelihood is more higher if they experience failure that they will learn from it and work harder towards succeeding at what they failed at. Example: A student bombs a Physics unit test and is overwhelmed by the material on the test. The likelihood is high that this student will work twice as harder to suceed on the next unit test. Also, failure must be taken positively. Smile and work hard towards reforming your mistakes.

Success is a whole other story. A lot can be learned from sucess, but I still think a student who fails learns more than a student that suceeds. Part of it is the students mindset, but I'll give an example anyway: A student aces his Physics test and thinks the material is super easy. The student possibly may slack a bit (study wise) for the next unit, because he is under the impression that the material is easy. Sucess sometimes may influence a humans mindset like shown in the example above, success sometimes changes the mindset of the student negatively (for example: "This material is so easy, I don't even have to study for it", I'm particularly guilty of that as most high school students who breeze through high school are). The example and thoughts I provided about success aren't particularly true if you stick to a positive attitude and hard working mindset, regardless of positive results.

I think balancing it is a great idea, both success and failure should be experienced by every FIRST student.

[Ari423]

Originally Posted by jajabinx124

The likelihood is more higher if they experience failure that they will learn from it and work harder towards succeeding at what they failed at. Example: A student bombs a Physics unit test and is overwhelmed by the material on the test. The likelihood is high that this student will work twice as harder to suceed on the next unit test. Also, failure must be taken positively. Smile and work hard towards reforming your mistakes.

According to this, with the amount of failure my team has had we should be amazing by now. </joke>

All kidding aside, I definitely agree that failure propels us to improve. The worst season for my team since we were founded in 1999 was 2014, when we couldn't even pick up the ball and our drive train didn't work for half our matches (we did a 4 traction wheel, 1 CIM per wheel drive; bad idea). Then this past season (2015), we realized we need to step up our game, and we made the best robot we have ever made (arguably, but supported by most). We almost made it to Champs, missing it by about 10 points.

Hopefully our success last year will propel us to improve next year as much as our failure did the previous year. If we continue on our path of improvement, I see a Championship attendance in our future. Here's hopeful.

[chrisfl]

I'm going into my junior year of high school and we just had to read a book sorta like this, "The Triple Package". The book discusses why different ethnic and religious groups in America succeed or fail. Throughout the book the author discusses how the three parts to being successful are
1. Superiority complex
2. Insecurity
3. Impulse Control
The first 2 seem conflicting however they play off of each other.
For example, your team wins your division at champs but gets knocked out on Einstein. This scenario creates the perfect balance you need for learning. In this scenario, your team creates a superiority complex by knowing they are the best in their division however still are insecure after losing on Einstein. These 2 parts foster innovation in the future. If you were to flawlessly win in both your division and on Einstein you wouldn't have that chip on your shoulder to do better next year, you would become relaxed. Meanwhile, the team that got knocked out on Einstein will innovate to try and ensure that doesn't happen again.

1678 is a team that fits this situation. Every year they come out with a great robot and make it onto Einstein and just barely miss the win. Then after years of innovation they manage to win and be on top.

[Jon Stratis]

This is something that we've actually talked a bit about, as mentors, on my team. We feel that there definitely is value in failure, and it's both a great teaching tool and a part of the Engineering process - even someone was well known as Edison took thousands of failed attempts before he created a commercially viable lightbulb. But even though there's value in failure, we can't ignore the value of success. Repeated and prolonged failure can be discouraging and take away from the inspiration we're all trying to impart. So it's important to have some success mixed in as well.

So, with my team we always try to ensure the students have a successful year. That doesn't mean we go to champs every year, or that we define success by playing on Einstein. A successful year is something you feel in the atmosphere in your teams pit. It's an excitement and hope for the future. You can have that even if your ranked poorly, and likewise you can miss it even if your ranked highly. The key is to set realistic, achievable goals that stretch the team just a bit.

From a practical standpoint, this means that during the build season we let them fail at various things that are correctable. We try our best to ensure they don't do something totally off the wall that will set us back several weeks. But if they cut something too short or drill a hole in the wrong place it's just material - there's more sitting in the corner and they can try again. Likewise if they haven't thought through a design far enough to see the upcoming problems, then we have. We talk A LOT about how we're going to be solving the problems they'll run into next week. A lot of the time, we can be ready with an easy solution to help them get around the problem when they realize it (a solution that is only provided after they've come up with ideas and are still struggling)... Sometimes we don't see a solution to the problem, so we raise the issue earlier to get them thinking about it, and to avoid spending too much time going down a path that isn't going to work.

Don't let anyone fool you - being a mentor is hard. It's hard to manage a teams expectations, abilities, and failures to ensure a n overall successful season, however you define that success... And that definition may be different each year as the teams situation changes, and is largely guided by the expectations you help to manage. But it's also a lot of fun

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by chrisfl

I'm going into my junior year of high school and we just had to read a book sorta like this, "The Triple Package". The book discusses why different ethnic and religious groups in America succeed or fail. Throughout the book the author discusses how the three parts to being successful are
1. Superiority complex
2. Insecurity
3. Impulse Control
The first 2 seem conflicting however they play off of each other.
For example, your team wins your division at champs but gets knocked out on Einstein. This scenario creates the perfect balance you need for learning. In this scenario, your team creates a superiority complex by knowing they are the best in their division however still are insecure after losing on Einstein. These 2 parts foster innovation in the future. If you were to flawlessly win in both your division and on Einstein you wouldn't have that chip on your shoulder to do better next year, you would become relaxed. Meanwhile, the team that got knocked out on Einstein will innovate to try and ensure that doesn't happen again.

1678 is a team that fits this situation. Every year they come out with a great robot and make it onto Einstein and just barely miss the win. Then after years of innovation they manage to win and be on top.

This makes me scared to see 2826 next year.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

Interesting topic.
...

We had similar experiences in 2013.

At the wisconsin regional, we were in the lower 20 in terms of scoring. Yet, our unique shape and good driver allowed us to play brutal defense. We ended up being the 23rd overall pick, joining the second seed alliance with 1732 and 111, and got our first (and only) regional win. Through this, we realized that winning wasn't out of the question for our team, and that we might be able to shoot higher (literally)- value in success.

At midwest, we had made massive improvements to the robot. We were shooting into the higher goal, running more cycles per match, and shooting more consistently. We ended the event as the second seed, picking 111 and 1675. Mathematically, our alliance was the highest-scoring at the event, but we lost in semis because of broken parts and consistency problems. Learning from our mistakes, we returned from the event determined to make further improvements- value in failure.

At champs, we expected to be a second pick, if we were in elims at all. We knew the bot was by far the best one we had ever made, but we just didn't know if we'd make the cut. Yet, through some good strategy and a little luck, we ended up being the 7th seeded alliance captain. Even though we didn't make it past quarters, we were excited to even have been there, let alone be an alliance captain- value in success.

I could keep going, but 2014 in a nutshell was a lesson in failure and 2015 in a nutshell was a lesson in success. (at the end, at least) I have always felt that our failures have driven us to improve in the short term, while repeated failures encouraged long-term improvements. However, the value of success is how winning inspires a team to keep getting better. It provides a sense of identity and a sense of direction.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

At the wisconsin regional, we were in the lower 20 in terms of scoring. Yet, our unique shape and good driver allowed us to play brutal defense. We ended up being the 23rd overall pick, joining the second seed alliance with 1732 and 111, and got our first (and only) regional win. Through this, we realized that winning wasn't out of the question for our team, and that we might be able to shoot higher (literally)- value in success.

[emphasis mine] From a similar experience (winning our first ever award in 2009), I'd say this is the most valuable thing to be gained from a taste of success rather than full-on failure. Failure can be motivating, but only if you believe you can succeed if you do what you're being motivated to. Maybe not a thing teams on CD disproportionately struggle with (anymore), but even so it's wise to be on the lookout for demotivation as we try to strike the balance.

[Lil' Lavery]

Interesting to see that so far, success and failure has been defined by blue banners in this thread. In one case, being picked 23rd was considered a better success than being the 2nd alliance captain because of the final result.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Interesting to see that so far, success and failure has been defined by blue banners in this thread.

Agreed.

"Fail Faster" is a motto I use often. Do you think 254 wins on the field because their team never fails? No, they just failed 100 times on their practice field, versus your 10 failures on your practice field. By the time you are at your first event, there's still 90 ways your team could fail that 254 has already identified, corrected for, and moved past.

Failure is a critical component of success. I encourage students to fail as fast as possible. Build faster, test faster, fail in the off season, fail in your prototyping, test auto until it fails, crash your scouting system, etc. Fail as often as you can when it doesn't count to increase your chance of success when it does count.

In an education culture that hinges on having the perfect grades and perfect SAT scores to get into the perfect colleges, I enjoy providing an environment where students are encouraged to test their own hypothesis, challenge their assumptions, and regularly fail. I also enjoy celebrating their victories that come from working through failure (both small and large victories).

-Mike

[rick.oliver]

I encourage you to think about your question differently. I believe that the best quality we, as mentors, can instill in students and each other is a passion for excellence.

“There are many people, particularly in sports, who think that success and excellence are the same thing. They are not the same thing. Excellence is something that is lasting and dependable and largely within a person's control. In contrast, success is perishable and is often outside our control. If you strive for excellence, you will probably be successful eventually. People who put excellence in the first place have the patience to end up with success. An additional burden for the victim of the success mentality is that he is threatened by the success of others and he resents real excellence. In contrast, the person that is fascinated by quality is excited when he sees it in others.”
― Joe Paterno

[Rachel Lim]

I'm a student, so I can't really answer the OP's question, but I thought it was interesting so started thinking about it.

For everything below, I'm going to define success in terms of on-field success (i.e. how well a team's robot works). Not necessarily winning the event, but having a competitive robot and the potential to win. Similarly, I define failure not as being a finalist or making a few mistakes at competition, but not being a competitor at all.

Inspiration
We've all heard it: FIRST is about inspiration. For some students, failure will be inspiring. They prefer to just try things out and see from themselves what comes out of it. However, I believe that for most, success will be more so. Telling someone "you can do this" versus "you might be able to do this" sends a stronger message. It really varies by person though--I have friends on all sides of this issue.

But I think there is a danger with failure. If you're successful, at worst students will be indifferent. If you're not, they might learn that "this is hard" or "I can't do this" and no longer want to go into engineering / STEM / etc.

There's also the possibility of a greater impact with success. Successful teams have the power to inspire not only their own students, but students around the world. I've been pushed by what I've designed and built to do better next time, but seeing other teams' robots has inspired me more than anything else, and given me a goal to push towards.

There is definitely a power in failure. I just don't think competition is the place to do so. And not to the extent that I've defined it as. Learning from mistakes, testing out ideas that don't work, and "failing" during prototyping is great. Just keep it all in context. Failure as a motivation to do better helps; failure as an end does not.

Learning
I think the question was more focused on whether you learn more from success or failure. Again, I think it's both. If you never lose, you never learn why you need to try hard. If you never win, you never learn why you are trying hard.

For more specific lessons, such as the original example about developing a strategy, I think the lessons will be more ingrained if they come from failure. A couple of friends and I came up with a list of "things we are never putting on our robot again." (Mainly rope, especially when used to move stuff.) Had we not used them in the first place, and just been told it wouldn't work, we might never have understood why not to. But the lesson came with a price. Here it was just that we had to deal with rope for one season. It could have been much more, and seriously affected points above.

This may not be the best example because the rope wasn't something we were warned against, but the only solution anyone could come up with. There were mentors who helped with it.

I believe the strongest lesson a mentor can teach is how to succeed. It can come by guiding students through the process, letting them experiment themselves, or some combination of the two. It will really depend on the team, and what the mentors / students believe.

In the end
I think I've rambled on enough...in the end, what I'd say is to show students how to succeed, but make sure they understand why. Use the offseason and prototyping as a time to try out all sorts of ideas and see what does and doesn't work. Don't let it come at the price of failure at competition, but that doesn't mean to not experiment.

And it'd vary by teams. What mentors are / are not able or willing to do, what students want / don't want to do, and everything else. The best balance is what both groups compromise on and believe is best for the team as a whole.

Random thoughts

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Meanwhile many other teams who resent mentor-built-robots [...]

This is an interesting point. There are many people who don't believe in mentor-run, but who are fine with other teams doing whatever they think is best. (i.e. "you inspire your way.") I've always believed that people who actually resent mentor-built robots / mentor-run teams are those who are jealous of their success or frustrated with their own failure. I guess that's another danger of failing: putting down those who are more successful in order to make yourself feel better. It's another lesson I think mentors should be teaching students: how to avoid that thinking, and how to cope with failure because at some point, everyone will experience it.

(I'm not trying to get into a mentor-run/built debate; I just wanted to respond to that.)


Wow, that was long...

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Interesting to see that so far, success and failure has been defined by blue banners in this thread. In one case, being picked 23rd was considered a better success than being the 2nd alliance captain because of the final result.

Blue banners are a way to define success, because it's what we aim for. No one is trying to lose in finals.

Also I think the picked 23rd>2nd captain was because they qualified for champs when they were picked 23rd, and then did very well at champs, becoming an alliance captain.

[sanddrag]

While there is definite value in each style of teaching and learning, I prefer to take an approach where I demonstrate and teach successful methods before allowing students to proceed down a road of failure. In FRC specifically, failure can be disastrous, and there is often limited time in which success cannot be realized after a catastrophic failure. In the workshop, failure can be expensive, and even life-threatening.

A problematic dynamic and culture becomes apparent when failure persists for such a duration and reoccurs so frequently that students begin to accept it as the norm, and never learn the proper way to do things.

If you look at Team 696 pre-2012 and post-2012, you'll see a clear difference. That was the year in which we decided as a team, we are going to do things the right way, and learn how to do things the right way, and teach each other how to do things the right way, and take some sense of pride in our work and hold high standards of quality in everything we do. It has drastically transformed our robots, our students, our lab, and the way we work. Whodathunk?