The Goals of FIRST

[jburstein]

FIRST was created to motivate "young people to pursue opportunities in science, technology and engineering." They have clearly been succesful in this goal, as Dean loves to point out there are nearly 1000 teams participating. And if you have ever set foot into the competition then you know that the enthusiasm is tangible... I mean if you don't call 150 people at SVR wearing pink bunny ears enthusiastic then... erm... I don't know what you'd call them. As Dean says every year, at every competition, in every speech he gives, FIRST has come a long way since it started. He always gives"a homework assigment" to bring in new teams, sponsors and mentors. The growth of FIRST is important, but sheer numbers of people is not the most critical area of growth at this moment.

The most needed type of growth is in FIRST's goals. FIRST's name, standing for For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, states it's goal very clearly. Inspiration, hooking the interest of the student, is a critical first step in education, but it is merely a first step. FIRST has inspired enough students now to have 'critical mass.' FIRST no longer needs to restrict itself to inspiration, it can move on to educating.

I am suggesting that they do this by phasing out engineer participation in the actual building of the robot. The way for students to learn most is by being the ones to build the robot. It may be inspiring to watch over an engineer's shoulder as he/she builds a robot, but true learning comes from ownership. I hear many teams say "sure we had engineers involved in our build, but the kids understand every inch of the robot." While that may be true, it is not the same "understanding" as someone who had ownership of the build process from start to finish.

An example: before a match, a team who claimed full student understanding was in front of us, and i was peering at their drive train. I asked one of the students (the driver of the robot) what the gear ratio of their one step chain drive was. He didn't know, so I asked the human player, she didn't know and neither did the operator. Their coach, an engineer, was the one who knew. These students did not quite have the top to bottom understanding I had been assured of, and typically the driver and operator are the students most involved in the robot. In contrast all of the ten or so students who were full-time involved in our build process know our gear ratio, because they were directly involved in the design and build of the drive train.

Although it isn't important that everyone on the team know the gear ratios to four decimal places, such knowledge is indicative of the learning that has taken place. What make FIRST fun for me is the pride I get from coming up with a new way to do something, the satisfaction of seeing calculations work out into reality, and finally seeing the robot that I built get out their on the field and do its thing.

So I believe it is time for FIRST to elevate its mission beyond inspiration to education. The necessary step is to remove the engineers from the build process, not from the competition entirely because as is stated in FIRST's FAQ "meaningful involvement of adults in kid's lives is proven as an essential component for developing young people's potential." I propose restricting engineer involvement in the design process during the six week build period, that is not to say that the engineers should not be present, but they should be taking a backseat. It should be the engineers along for the ride instead of the kids. I am very much in favor of pre-build workshops on mechanical design, work sessions on a build train with as much engineer involvement as is desired by the students. However, during the build period it should be a time for the students to have control.

Now to finish off my rant several disclaimers:
1) This is not necessarily the opinion of Team 8, merely my own personal opinion.
2) This is an idea I intend to develop write about more fully at a time other than 11 PM and eventually propose to FIRST. I am posting it here so that y'all can throw your responses at it and we'll see what sticks. So have at it, and thanks.

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by jburstein
FIRST no longer needs to restrict itself to inspiration, it can move on to educating.
I am suggesting that they do this by phasing out engineer participation in the actual building of the robot.

Yet again an attempt to narrow what a FIRST team looks like.

I suggest that your team do things how you want, and leave other teams to evolve unique to themselves.

I suspect teams over time go back and forth between only student built to some engineer built - and are both inspired and educated thru both phases.

thread

[AlbertW]

this year we were completely student built

one problem - we didn't learn much.

well, we learned alot, but it was like legos

put the extrusion together, stick the gussett in, tighten

i guess you want what you don't have

You are proposing that engineers be taken out of the entire build period. Without engineers, I'm sure that many teams, especially rookie teams trying to get off the ground, will be left completely in the dark. Although it is not entirely beneficial to the team if an engineer is left to build the whole robot, pulling engineers out of the whole build period is also detrimental because without an engineeer, the team is losing a valuable resource of knowledge and experience. I do see your point about gear ratios, but it is not the fault of the engineer if the members of the team do not know the specific details of the robot.

At SVR, a judge (sorry...forgot your name) with whom my team was having a discussion specifically told my team that engineer involvement is an integral aspect of FIRST. The leaders of FIRST probably would much rather see a robot built by students who cooperated with an engineer rather than a robot that is entirely student built.

The purpose of an engineer is not limited to motivation. In fact, almost every bit of robotic knowledge on my team was acquired through the teaching skills, guidance, and experience of engineers and parents. The engineers aren't just building a robot while we eat popcorn and watch. Our engineers teach us what is possible with robotics and challenge us to think of new and creative ways to achieve a goal. Eliminating the engineer to allow the students an opportunity at firsthand learning is like pulling the teacher out of a classroom and asking the students to teach themselves calculus.

We are after the hat, Matt.

[FotoPlasma]

The main point of this thread's original post seems pretty inane, to me.

First of all, you seem to be promoting, if I am not mistaken, a course of action that would reduce the impact engineers would have on their teams. This would, I believe, most definitely adversely affect the inspirational capabilities of any professional engineers in a mentoring role. If engineers on teams only took the roles you'd prefer them to take, do you think that the Technokats would have built their famous ball-drive system? The whole concept was, if I am not mistaken, thought up by Mark Koors, an engineer at Delphi Automotive, and he spearheaded the effort to build it. However strange, and impractical the system may be, I can hardly even think that you would call it uninspirational, and even uneducational.

Anyway, just because your team can produce a working robot with relatively little outside engineering help, how can you assume that FIRST should change its methods, and become something completely different from what we have watched it slowly evolve into?

The program's goal is to inspire kids, with a high focus on science and technology, as you have already stated. The point is not, however, to have a team produce a fully functional robot with as little outside assistance as possible, and, in fact, that's exactly what FIRST would (again, if I am not mistaken) like to avoid.

As for the team who you use as an example of what you think should not happen, while I agree that it's unfortunate that they didn't know exactly what you asked for, it never seemed to occur to you that the sub-team who works with the robot on the field, including the drivers and human player, might not actually know what the specific gear ratio that they were using. I would give you a little more credit if you were to go into their pit and find every student sitting in the stands, and ask them all the same question about the robot, and they all gave you blank stares, while an adult mentor spouted off the answer, and sent the kids to fetch him another latté. But even then, that's an infinitesimal amount more than absolute zero credit. It's a totally irrelevant situation, and only solidifies my thought that you feel that you're better than some other teams because of the fact that they take advantage of engineering help.


I find your assumptions and assertions parochial and presumptuous.

[Chris Hibner]

I generally try to keep out of these types of threads since they usually end up in a flame war, but I have to respond to this one. I think that having engineers involved in FIRST throughout the process is a great thing. Therefore, I'm going to give my annual presentation:

WHY ENGINEERS ARE GOOD FOR FIRST TEAMS

FIRST is about inspiring students to become interested in math, science, and technology. When I joined FIRST (7 years ago), I was told that this should be done by the students working with the engineers so that the students can see how math and science can be applied to a complex problem to come up with a great solution. In the process, the students say "gee whiz" when they see that "we're never gonna use this crap" is simply a false statement.

So, what happens when the engineers are shut out and the students to EVERYTHING? It's been my experience that high level math or engineering principles are seldom used to solve the problems. Instead, the robots are built more by trial and error, with only basic math used to maybe figure out a gear ratio here or there. In this process, there is no "gee whiz", just "boy, I guess we can do this without much math or science." It gives a false impression that things can be made "good enough" through trial and error. This doesn't inspire people to learn math and science; if anything, it has the opposite effect.

This year, I worked on the control algorithm for our autonomous controller (we had a guidance system with full feedback control). The student who we (me and Kevin) worked with on the controller seemed very inspired as we explained control systems, how they work, and how they're being applied to the robot. We then worked with the students throughout the design and development of the controller so they could see how a real life control system was designed, developed, implemented, and calibrated. I believe this was far more inspirational for the students than having a simple, open-loop dead reckoning system.

In summary, I think it's important that the students get to see that math and science can be useful, and it's important to see ways in which it can be used. If nothing else, it my goal to use FIRST so that I never EVER have to hear "we're never gonna use this crap" again, because "this crap" is actually extremely useful. As engineers, it's up to us to show HOW it's useful.

-Chris

[Madison]

Originally posted by jburstein
The most needed type of growth is in FIRST's goals. FIRST's name, standing for For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology, states it's goal very clearly. Inspiration, hooking the interest of the student, is a critical first step in education, but it is merely a first step. FIRST has inspired enough students now to have 'critical mass.' FIRST no longer needs to restrict itself to inspiration, it can move on to educating.

Reducing the mission statement of the FIRST organization by denying the importance and value inspiration can and has had on the program and its students is insulting to those of who work so hard to take those words and turn them into the tangible reality you see at competitions. Removing an effective, essential component of this progam is not growth at all.

See, the real key to FIRST's success is its open-ended mission statement and the varied opportunities it facilitates. FIRST has no curriculum, but instead provides a set of very loose, liberal guidelines that let us do everything we can to get kids excited about some of the coolest stuff in the world. It let's us show them how to build robots, sure, but it also gives us the opportunity to give them a window into a much bigger, more exciting world. They get to see what we do at school and at work, and they get to see how those things, along with the tenets of Gracious Professionalism, have shaped our lives.

As a mentor, I try to think of myself as something more than an encyclopedia of mathematical equations, physics principles, and mechanical design components. I like to believe that I am a role model, and all of my actions reflect that belief. For me, the role I take in designing and building a robot is secondary to what I can give as a person.

There are thousands of engineers out there that know their stuff and, given the chance, would make excellent human reference books. Then, there are the really good people, like Andy Baker and Ken Leung and Jason Morella, who are so amazing and useful and inspirational because of the strength of their character. Engineering prowess has nothing to do with it.

I think what you're proposing is among the worst ideas pertaining to FIRST I've ever heard. If you want to petition FIRST to instate some rule the reduces the participation of these amazing people such that any old reference book is equally useful, go ahead. I don't believe that you'll receive any support from those of us who've been touched by their lives, or who are trying to have a fraction of the same effect that they have had.

[JVN]

Who better to educate the students on a team, than actual engineers?

By phasing out engineer participation, you are robbing the students of the very education you are advocating.

I'm still of the opinion that students on "student built" teams learn a lot... but ultimately learn less than those on "engineer built" teams. There is only so much a HSer can teach himself, whereas an experienced engineer can show the kid "the world."

Just my opinion...

I used to advocate a student built robot, but the more I thought about it, the more I came to realize that...
Trial and Error is NOT the best way to learn engineering.

While letting someone figure something out for themselves might be the best way to teach them... A little guidance probably goes a Loooooooooong way.

I like this quote:
"Your engineers are kinda like instruction manuals. You can try to build w/o the manual, but chances are you will end up with extra parts.." - D.J. Fluck

I think DJ pretty much summed it up right there.

[KenWittlief]

FIRST is NOT an educational program - never was - never will be [thank God!]

To determine if your team is successfull, you only need to ask one question:

=> how many students on your team are now planning on studying science or engineering in college?

the robot building contest is only a platform, a foundation, a underlying bridge, that allows engineers to take high school students through a complete engineering design cycle, from initial problem analysis, through design, build, test, deployment, field modification, and real world competition.

Do you know what the engineering design cycle is? Do you know how to perform data-driven analysis of the game and its rules, to define the optimum game strategy?

How to write a set of system requirements that will meet all the required functions of the game/rules? how to turn that into a design specification? How to break down your system design spec into subsystems?

how to test each one as a unit? how to integrate them all together and test them as a system?

How to implement a closed loop PID feedback control system that optimizes performace while remaining stable? How to optimize SW code for speed? min code space? min variables?

Can you define the physics of the game and determine the energy, power and work specifications your machine will need to meet?

There is no way you could teach high school students everything they would need to know in 6 weeks (or even in a year) to build a state of the art, competitive machine. You simply cant lump 4 or more years of engineering classes, and many years of professional experience into a program like this.

If you could, then instead of sending kids to a university for 4 years, all we would need to do is let them be on a FIRST team for 6 weeks - right?

?!

I think Im going to change my signature line to one of Dean Kamens other famous quotes " at some point in the next 6 weeks you might start to think you are involved in a robot building contest. Then you are in SERIOUS trouble!"

FIRST is not about building robots - its about building careers!

If you let a group of HS student take the kit of parts, and bolt it together, with a few holes drilled here and there, and a few lines changed in the default code - then what have you shown them about engineering?

FIRST should NOT leave a student with the feeling that he gets it now - he can do it by himself now -

FIRST should leave you with a deep sense that this engineer stuff is awesome, and you cant wait to learn how it all works, cause you want to do this for the rest of your life.

Engineering is not easy, its not simple. Its a lot of work. Pushing the state of the art means you are standing on the shoulders of every engineer and scientist who paved your way, and you are now taking their work one step further.

Im 45 years old, and when I see the things some people are working on, it gives ME goosebumps!

[Redhead Jokes]

Originally posted by Dirty Harry
At SVR, a judge (sorry...forgot your name) with whom my team was having a discussion specifically told my team that engineer involvement is an integral aspect of FIRST.

To our team's surprise we won Engineering Inspiration Award at Phoenix, the second highest award (that doesn't get you to nationals - another surprise to our team). It was cuz of our year-round weekly open houses

Featured

that were made the #3 pick for Kids and Family in LA.

In addition the judge was excited to hear we have 12 engineers/technicians/mentors

[Jim McGeehin]

There is always a balance between student and robot built parts. If one side goes to an extreme, then the students will not learn, or be able to explain why. And it shows, when a student is asked about their robot, and you receive blank stares for a second while an engineer takes over.

If students completely build the robot, then the partnership between the engineers and students is lost. The students might build something or do something unsafe. But if the engineers and mentors build too much of the robot, then the education and learning of the students is lost.

Neither side wins.

There's a balance to it all, when the engineers guide the students, and both cooperate to build a robot. There can be no better way then when both sides are in cooperation - the true spirit of FIRST.

[JVN]

Originally posted by Jim McGeehin
There is always a balance between student and robot built parts. If one side goes to an extreme, then the students will not learn, or be able to explain why. And it shows, when a student is asked about their robot, and you receive blank stares for a second while an engineer takes over.

If students completely build the robot, then the partnership between the engineers and students is lost. The students might build something or do something unsafe. But if the engineers and mentors build too much of the robot, then the education and learning of the students is lost.

Neither side wins.

There's a balance to it all, when the engineers guide the students, and both cooperate to build a robot. There can be no better way then when both sides are in cooperation - the true spirit of FIRST.

Exactly!
Thank you Jim!

That is precisely how I feel about it, and you put it into words very eloquently.

[Jim McGeehin]

Thank you very much, John.

[Mike Schroeder]

i think that you need the engineers to inspire, w/o them, FIRST students will not see what they have to look forward to in there future (if they go into engineering) And i think the best way to inspire is how Dean Kamen says it himslef to pair acctual engineers with students. while i have seen both sides of the fence, i think that they both have their pros and cons for one, you can build a robot and it can work, but do you know why? do you know how?

That is what the enineers are there for, if a team decides that the engineers will play a more important role, fine all the power to them, but i have seen robots that are all engineer' built and they didnt not perform as well as completly student built one,

My Team doesnt have Engineers, they have Tradesmen, 2 welders, a machinist an Electrician, a tin worker, and in my opinion we learn more from them each year

But no engineers is a perfect way for teams to opperate, as someone in an earlier post said, let teams work their own way, if they want engineers let them have engineers

[KenWittlief]

BTW - building the robot itself should only take about 2 weeks of the 6 week program

first you must figure out what needs to be done to win the game

then you need to figure out what you are going to build

then you can build it.

if you do the first 2 steps in 2 hours, then spend 5.9 weeks building, what you are doing is not engineering.

in the real world, bolting, cutting, wiring, and screwing a machine together is something you get a technician to do -

all the magic in science and engineering happens between your ears.