Mentor Roles

[Taylor]

FIRST is not a robot-building or team-building exercise. It is a mentorship program. (emphasis mine)

Originally Posted by FIRST Mission

The mission of FIRST 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.

Originally Posted by FIRST Methodology

Engage kids in kindergarten through high school in exciting, Mentor-based, research and robotics programs that help them become science and technology leaders, as well as well-rounded contributors to society.

[hardcopi]

We try to let the kids lead, but sometimes that doesn't work. You wouldn't let the kids have power saw fights would you for instance. We have a lot of good seniors this year and only in a couple groups do the mentors have to keep everyone on track very often. In those groups however the mentors end up taking the role of a teacher showing the kids what they need to do, how to do it and enforcing the rules.

In other groups the seniors have been around long enough that they kinda run with it. 4 years ago I was holding their hands and doing more of the photoshop work than I wanted to. This year because they have the experience they just brought me finished brochures done in Photoshop. I was impressed to be honest.

I guess what I am saying is, let the kids have their way as long as they are working toward the goal, but it is your job (in my opinion anyway) to keep them grounded in reality and the timeline we have. Sounds like they are needing some guidance back on track.

[BeardyMentor]

Every team and every mentor has a different style of mentorship. Some teams have the mentors completely hands off and only there to assist and push forward a completely student driven approach. Some teams have the students hands off and the mentors build and "inspire".

More often though, is it a hybrid of the two extremes where the students have a seat at the table with the mentors in determining direction, strategy and design. An entirely student driven approach often lacks direction. Having a mentor there to make comments and help gently guide the discussion is very helpful. An entirely mentor driven approach usually lacks creativity and passionate involvement from the students. Personally, I use a persuasive method when I see someone going far down what I think is the wrong path. I first give them a chance to explain what it is they think they are trying to achieve. Many times this is enough. They either convince me that I was mistaken or, the act of enunciating their idea is enough for them to hear what their mistake was. If that does not work some strategic questioning usually convinces those who still dont see what is going wrong. The question that everyone should be asking all the time is: "how does what I am doing right now contribute to on field and off field strategy?"

[MrForbes]

Sounds like a tough situation, although I've sort of been there in the earlier years. After a while at this, I've figured out that the reason that I keep coming back year after year is that I really enjoy the engineering process, and working with a team of students to design and build a robot in 6 weeks is about the most fun an engineer can have. And I let the students know that being part of the team, them letting me do stuff, is what keeps me coming back. I don't have any interest in sitting around watching other people do stuff.

As suggested, you all need to sit down and talk about your roles on the team, and the status of your engineering project (the robot). There are two weeks left, and a few teams have already demonstrated that you can build a robot in three days....but it takes a cooperative effort by everyone on the team. Let them know that you want the team to succeed, and you're concerned that if things keep going as they are, that won't happen.

Mentoring is a tough game.

[mathking]

As many others have said, every team has a different culture. I have found that the best teams have a commonality, that their is a feeling of partnership in the process. My first question would be how many other mentors are there and what are their views of how things are going? If this is a school based team, talking to the teacher in charge (for some, the teachers are mentors, for some teams the teacher really acts more as a business manager and HR director but isn't as involved in the robot building, for some the teacher is the person they have to have around to have a team in the school) is also a good idea. Ultimately if you want to be successful as a team the team has to develop a good working culture in which people know and are willing to accept their roles. Some of our mentors do more and teach less, some teach more and do less. We try to let the students learn how to do everything we do, but we all pitch in when things need to get done.

I would not put too much stock in what one stressed out student says. Everyone involved is part of the team. I have been doing FRC since 2000 and with team 1014 since we started in 2003. I also coach track and cross country. That experience comes in handy a lot more than you might think. Building a good track team and building a good robotics team share a lot of similarities.

If you want more specific suggestions feel free to send me a PM.

[T3_1565]

I will just chime in to say that sometimes students and mentors have different pictures to look at.

For some students all that matters is the years in which they are students whatever happens before or after doesn't matter to them. For mentors, its about improving on past success and continually growing for many years to come. These pictures sometimes will not match or work well together.

I treat mentoring as though I'm a coach (I come from a sports background lol). As a coach I can lead students only as far as they are willing to be lead.

I will do everything I can to teach them to find their own flaws and I consistently ask them whether their approach is correct (regardless if its the "right" answer or the "wrong" answer) to stimulate their thought process and their ability to see their own mistakes.

BUT, there will ALWAYS be a point where tunnel vision takes over and they will choose a "wrong" direction. After that happens I no longer treat the option as "wrong" and will do everything in my power to make there choice succeed.

This way they see that I'm not trying to over power them but if their choice fails dispute our efforts to make it work, they will remember that there was other options available to them that maybe they should of listened to. And should they succeed, then everyone learned something that we previously thought wouldn't work, and we grow from either result.

Example: Say your team wishes to do a Holonomic Drive this year. Most people here would say that was not the right choice of drive, and when you discuss this with the students have them lay out the pros and cons with some assistance from you. When they decide to still choose this drive after you do your best to show the flaws in the choice, Your job becomes trying to make their choice work. Maybe you have to double up on wheels to make sure things don't break as easily. Something. Should it work, your almost guaranteed to have some fame from other teams, students will be thrilled etc etc. Should it fail, the students learn first hand why that process doesn't work the way they thought.

Either way you helped them through the whole process and they will appreciate you.

Just my (long) 2 cents

[Jon Stratis]

One thing I haven't seen addressed is the definition of success and failure. Depending on the team, these can have hugely different definitions. Simbotics wouldn't produce a basic kitbot with no manipulators and call it a success. But rookie teams (including teams that, while not rookies, might as well be due to turnover or other issues) would.

As an LRI at competition, I define success as getting every team in the field with something that moves. It doesn't have to be pretty, it doesn't have to be able to manipulate game pieces overly well, but it needs to get out there and move. Just moving on the field is enough to let your team contribute to the alliance - herding balls, helping with defenses, playing defense against the other alliance... These are all things that can be done with a basic kitbot with no additions. And that robot can be put together in a day - I've seen it happen before practice day at competition, believe it or not.

So yes, you may be behind schedule. Yes, you may not get your manipulator done and yes, you may not play the game as effectively as you want. But if you have faith, work with your students, and show up to competition with something that at least drives you will make it to the field to compete.. It may not be what you consider a success,. But it may help inspire the kids for next season, or inspire some changes in the team structure. Trust me, I've been there. My team did not have what we consider a successful season last year. Our robot did not perform well at all, not nearly up to our standards. But it has inspired the entire team for this year, and things are looking very different right now than they died at this same point last year.

I recommend sitting down with the students and asking them to come up with a priority list. What do they want to get done? What do they want their ROBOT to look like? What is the most important part of the robot that absolutely HAS to be finished?. Do that and you can ensure that your robot can at least move and do SOMETHING at cocompetition, even if it doesn't do EVERYTHING the team wants it to do.

[runneals]

This year is my second year mentoring a FRC team (first year mentoring my alma mater that I was on in 2013). I have found a unique analogy from one of my classes that I TA'ed in college where my professor (Dr. Corson) said, "Think of it like a ride at Disney Land, you're the track and the students are the car. They can move freely about (within reason), but the track prevents them from getting too far off."
And for me, it has been kind of hard to step back and let the students run the team, but I feel like I am slowly transforming from a mentor that likes to do hands-on stuff to a mentor that is more of a facilitator and provides guidance and suggestions while letting the students use their skills to solve the problem.

[Aaron Ng]

I see a lot of people here talking about a student built vs mentor built robot. And it is understandable why many people have strong opinions on the matter on both sides. I for one believe that FIRST is a educational program made to inspire kids to explore STEM fields. Whether they find inspiration building a robot, or having someone else build it for them, does not matter, and will change on a team to team basis.

The feeling that i get from your post is that your team is primarily student ran. If that is the case, my two cents is it is important to step back, and let the students design and build the robot just as they always have been. Tell them your ideas for sure, but if they are adamant about going the other way, then the best thing you can do is to try and help them as best you can. Forcing the team to go in another direction will do nothing but cause unnecessary tension.

[Zebra_Fact_Man]

Something not mentioned yet in this thread is that because every team has a unique team culture, not every mentor will fit comfortably in every team. My former teams and my current team follow distinctly different season philosophies and that's ok.

If you feel like you have something to offer and you are not being listened to, talk to team leadership about how you feel. The worst thing you can do is not tell other people on the team how you feel. If they are not receptive to your feeling, this offseason might be the time to look for a new team that more closely fits you build philosophies.

There are dozens of teams in your state that could use your help. Don't feel pigeon-holed into one team.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Taylor

FIRST is not a robot-building or team-building exercise. It is a mentorship program. (emphasis mine)

Thanks for these quotes! "Mentor-based" is in our team's mission statement, I just couldn't figure out where it came from...

-Mike

[MrJohnston]

There are lots of different thoughts here and, as several have said, all teams are a little different and you'll (with other mentors?) have to figure out the path for your team....

Our team approaches things like this: The mentors will makes sure that a functional robot gets built - not necessarily a good robot or a competitive robot, but something that rolls around the floor and "tries" to help. They will also offer ideas, coaching, etc. that will give the kids the opportunity to go much further. If the kids have a really difficult concept they wish to pursue and are willing to put forth the effort to do so, the mentors will help them to get there, but the effort must be driven by the students.

Do you let the kids fail? It depends. Sometimes kids fail because they lack the know-how or skills to accomplish something. If this is the case and they are trying hard, then no: make sure they find success. This doesn't need to be a winning robot, but it should be something that allows the to enjoy playing the game. Ideally, if kids are working hard and find themselves not building the glorious robot they envisioned because they lack the engineering abilities to do so, they will be inspired to acquire those skills so that they might realize that goal the following year.

However, if the kid are failing due to apathy, lack of motivation, other priorities, etc., you might need to let them fail. However, don't make it easy for them. Have meetings with the leadership (or whole team, depending on the team's structures), and let them know that you are concerned. Offer guidance and support. Kindly make sure they understand the consequences of they choices they are making, etc. Give them multiple opportunities to self-correct. However, if at the end of the day, they just refuse to build the robot, they need to fail. I very much disagree with the idea that kids should be permitted to knowingly make poor choices and still be led to a reward.

Of course, sometimes kids are failing because they don't trust their mentors' sage advice, suggesting a disconnect. If this is the case, the primary goal of the mentors must be to re-establish the student-mentor relationship. The students might, for instance, choose a design that has no chance of success in the eyes of professional engineers.... However, being teenagers, they don't recognize that the professionals might know more than they do and insist on moving forward with their design. On our team, we approach such a situation like this: As mentors, we agree to support their misguided attempts and do whatever we can to help them to be successful in their pursuit of said failing principle. However, at the same time, we insist that they, with mentor guidance, also pursue a back-up plan that will succeed. Simply put: Sometimes kids need to be confronted with their own lack of expertise before they are willing to trust those who are veritable experts.

I wish you well. It is always tough on an entire team when leadership dynamics are not working well. And, yes, mentors are necessarily a part of the leadership of a team.