Why do teams voluntarily do FIRST without adult technical mentors?

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

I had a college professor that once said there are three kinds of knowledge -

What you know
What you know you don't know
and
What you don't know you don't know

he forgot two:

what you think you know, but you dont
what you think you dont know, but you actually do :^)

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

But the mentors already know everything. The point is not always to get the robot done fastest, it is for you students to learn something.

Ouch, I guess that I can't be a mentor.

I am one that is not a teacher, not a student, not a parent and definitely not an engineer. I am a person that loves to figure out solutions to problems and loves the way FIRST inspires young and old people (myself included). I have spent 3 seasons with a veteran team. When I joined the team I found that the mentors did a lot of the work. Over the last 3 years there has been more and more involvement by the students. This is progress and inspiring. We work more and more as a team and the students are taking on more and more responsibilities. Will this continue? Probably not. Why you ask. Well every team goes through cycles. Every team goes through all of their students every 4 years. Every student is different. This is no different than the real world. People come and people go. What is great about FIRST is that there seems to be a lot of mentors that will only leave one way. This base group are inspiring students and mentors alike. They are there to help the greater good of FIRST. These people share their experience with others. This is where other teachers, mentors, engineers and students can get the inspiration they need to make their teams better. When this happens, all of the base mentors get inspired to do more and the cycle goes on.

I must admit that I learn as much from the students if not more than they learn from me. I hope that as time goes on that I will be able to pass my knowledge on to others more than I take.

A proper balance of mentors, engineers and students is one were they are all learning from each other, all being inspired and most important, that they are all having fun.

[sirbleedsalot]

While our team prides itself with having a completely student built robot, especially since we were able to be in the winning alliance this year in St. Louis. I don't think that our team would refuse help from anyone, it is just that there is not many engineers around our area, and we have never taken an active role in finding adult leaders besides teachers and parents. As the former team captain I think that while every team is different they all need to be able to teach/inspire the students if this means having the older kids teaching programming, farmers teaching how to run roller chain, or an engineer teaching a student about CAD. It does not matter where the knowledge is coming from as long as everyone is having a good time and learning something.

[mechanicalbrain]

Hmm something I'm currently dealing with. We are semi student ran and I'm trying to make our team more student controlled. I found that while mentors may be skilled with engineering and create great designs they tend to not be practical and often mentors don't actually have experience in robotics just what in theory should work. In fact mentors can easily cause more trouble then solving problems. One thing i see is mentors coming up with ideas and trying to imprint them on students. What ends up happening is that the robot really has little work by the students and it shows (and thats not necessarily a good thing). Even though I'm not a mentor i still have to fight the urge to force my ideas on others and am often better off for it. Ive also found that the reason certain teams do well is because the same mentor is designing the robot each year. One thing students need to learn is how to pass on knowledge to other students so when they leave the kids still their know what the heck their doing. I do this by making other students do the work (this may sound kind of lazy but has a specific purpose) even though i would prefer to do it myself. This is great because if I'm gone for a reason or want to do multiple projects at once i don't have to worry about anyones competence. How many of you can tell some kids set up a test robot and all the wiring and we need the system done by the end of the day? Ill tell you its pretty cool to watch them go off and know they know exactly what their doing. Anyhew ill bet if ran right a student run team can outperform almost any mentor ran team (but not those with insane resources!).

[Arefin Bari]

Very good thread Andy...

When someone tells me the word "mentor" I think of someone who will be there to teach me, and then watch over my shoulder when I am building cool things. If it is not possible for me to design or machine a part, or code certain section, then the mentor take over and solve the problems. I have seen many teams work like that. The students love it, because they get the best out of the program.

When I was a student in HS... I have had my engineers show me a design and tell me how it works. I did learn stuff when they did that. I also learned when they handed me a 3" by 3" by 1/2" thick block alumium and said "we need to make the holders for the ball bearing and the plate which will attach the side plates together. You need a quarter inch hole in the middle so you can attach the ball bearing. Go take weights outta there and make it look cool."

The best team out there would be the team who understands the meaning of "Teamwork." When a group of students, engineers, teachers, and parents come together and makes sure that the students learn throughout the build season, it is the best feeling. There is something that I like to achieve more than the awards. I like the feeling when the team comes together, builds, and then have the machine go out there on the field and watch it dominate.

That is just 2 cents.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

The best team out there would be the team who understands the meaning of "Teamwork." When a group of students, engineers, teachers, and parents come together and makes sure that the students learn throughout the build season, it is the best feeling.

I think this is the best way to run a team. There are two things that really hurt when I am at a competition, one is the team with no teamwork, the mentors do everything or they do nothing. (I am shocked to find mentors pushing students away from the robot in the pits) They even refuse help from other teams. The whole team suffers no matter what the teamwork situation is.
The other thing is a student dominated team who is looking for assistance but doesn't know how to ask for help or is too embarrassed to ask either a mentor or another team. Often this team is suffering due to a minor problem. (i.e. a misaligned bearing, bad wiring or a code bug.) If I could get teams to pledge themselves to ask for help when needed (before or during competitions) then everyone would be better off.
My point is that you don't need mentors to make a good robot but it helps and the same could be said for students. However, when you work together, you can accomplish more and have a lot of fun too! Students, this may be the biggest oportunity you will ever get, take advantage of talking, learning, and working with your mentors.

[Pat Chen]

[quote=Arefin Bari]Very good thread Andy...

When someone tells me the word "mentor" I think of someone who will be there to teach me, and then watch over my shoulder when I am building cool things. If it is not possible for me to design or machine a part, or code certain section, then the mentor take over and solve the problems. I have seen many teams work like that. The students love it, because they get the best out of the program...............


QUOTE]

What Arefin wrote in quite true.....students will learn a lot if the mentors let the students do the work first...then offer advice or help...... I know this thread is about technical mentors...but what we need to acknowlege is .....without school board personnel supporting the team....nothing happens too.....many times...we hear of a team dissolving because they cannot find a teacher or any school board personnel to mentor the team.....even if they build a robot.....they cannot travel to any competition....to combat this...is to do Dean's homework....spread the word of FIRST..... there is a chat scheduled to talk to educators on Tapped In.....believe it or not....not too many of my colleagues are aware of FIRST and what it is all about....I know ...because of my children's involvement....otherwise...I would be clueless too.....we have a thread about the chat.....it will be on 12/6...7-9 PM EST....http://tappedin.org/tappedin/ ......on the K-12 Campus....Robotics (K-12) chat room...you have to register...guests are not allowed on the K-12 Campus.....email me if you have any questions.

[CJO]

I must disagree with many of you. In manyt ways I think what makes some of the FIRST designs really great is that the students do not know enough to know the "right" way to do things. Instead of having been told what years of education can teach, we get to really experiment with things, sure, it may not be economical or efficient, but the time for that is later. Now, students get a chance to just get their hands a bit dirty. That is also why I am against identical designs which get used year after year. To me these are just the same as if a mentor did all of the designing. Even if the designs were originally students', after a couple of years the new stuents are robbed of the experience of seeing their own designs to reality.

In many ways FIRST is about re-inventing the wheel -- or at least re-making it.

[phrontist]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

You already "get" the fact that you need to further your education and you already know that you will end up in some sort of technical career when you enter the workplace. You probably score between 700 and 800 on the math portion of your SAT's. You have good work experience and are probably graduating high in your class. Colleges are lining up to recruit you to come study on their campus.

It would be a deceit of omission to let that slide. Sadly, none of the above assertions are true.

I understand your argument Mr. Baker, and I've read quite a bit of what The Denim Clad One has put forth, but I still can't bring myself to embrace that viewpoint totally. There must be a middle-ground here, but I don't know what it is yet.

[Alexander McGee]

Originally Posted by phrontist

It would be a deceit of omission to let that slide. Sadly, none of the above assertions are true.

I understand your argument Mr. Baker, and I've read quite a bit of what The Denim Clad One has put forth, but I still can't bring myself to embrace that viewpoint totally. There must be a middle-ground here, but I don't know what it is yet.

With your ability to string words together so eloquently, the way you have several times in this thread, I would think that you are not giving yourself enough credit. Your posts reflect the intelligence of someone far beyond your years, and yet you claim that you have difficulty grasping this concept.

Let me help explain what you and I didn’t get in High School, and what I now understand about this program. It is one thing to be a student on a team, and an entirely different thing to be a mentor. From the posts you have made in other threads, it is blatantly obvious that you have utilized experience with computers and programming in your FIRST and personal life experiences. Where, may I ask, did this come from?

Whether it was from this program or not, both situations point to the same thing; FIRST works. For some reason or another, you have learned something on your team, or expanded on what you already knew. This not only makes you want to do and know more, it excites the people around you.

Imagine, if you would, being a mentor on a team instead of a student. Now, your priority is to engage your students both mentally and mechanically to get them excited. On my team, this means being fairly hands-off and letting the students design and manufacture everything. Knowledge, however, does not come from nowhere. Someone has to show you how to do something, directly or indirectly.

How did you learn to program? Did you have someone over your shoulder showing you how to write code? Or, did you get a tutorial online or a book from a store? One way or another, you learn by example and demonstration. You can not simply “get” something like programming; there is inherent information that you need to know before you can learn. This is similar to mechanical aspects as well; if you have never learned how to use a screwdriver, you may waste a good amount of time trying to figure out how it works, but having someone over your shoulder to demonstrate and show you how to use it makes things go a lot easier.

Continuing with the screwdriver example, arguably some people will remind me that a fairly intelligent person can figure out how to use one in a certain amount of time. I would insist, however, that this wasted time is not necessary, as the ultimate goal is to teach someone how to use a screwdriver. What does it matter where you learned it from? Be it a book, tutorial, random experimentation, or someone using one alongside you.

However, there are certain things that are next to impossible to learn with experimentation alone. Try learning to use CNC mills or 3ds max without any help files, tutorials, or guidance at all. See how long it takes you to learn how to master them.

Al that being said, there is much disagreement about the role of an engineer on a team. Many people do not see eye-to-eye on this, because some things work for some teams, but would rip others apart. I agree with you, 100% that direct student involvement is vital to inspiration in this program. However, consider for a minute this example:

Imagine a team who has been around for over 10 years in this program, with a group of engineers form a successful corporation who are dedicated to making the team great. This team has been a national champion, a Chairman’s winner, and is arguably one of the best teams around. Now, picture a new student who has joined this team, as a freshman. The mechanics of the team allow for minimal involvement of the students in the design and build process, and even less for an inexperienced freshman. The corporation whom the team belongs to likes seeing winning trophies in their display case, and having their company’s name in the papers. The student goes through the season without ever picking up a screwdriver, but watches the engineers with a hunger to learn. He does not ever get to touch or drive the robot, but goes home and learns about other ways he can grow on this interest. He loves being a part of a team who wins, and loves being able to be proud of the robot’s performance, even if he does not get to work on it. The team wins many awards that season, and the student asks his parents for a VEX kit for his birthday. He learns how to use it over the summer and learns more about design and mechanics that he observed from the engineers the previous season. The next season, he observes more and more, and then decides to pursue this stuff as a career.

I’m going to stop there and explain a little bit. I don’t like that situation at all, not one bit, but it has happened exactly as I painted it. The fact of the matter is that a successful robot can inspire a student just as much as one that he built himself without help. I have seen, from personal experience, students on such teams get more inspired and motivated than some of the most technical students in this program. In my personal opinion, engaging the students technically makes the inspiration process work a bit better for those who may not have any interest in the technical aspects of a team. Nevertheless, teams with and without engineers continue to produce excellent students into the corporate world.

You seek a middle ground, but why does it have to be a war? You may not see this now, but I guarantee you will a few years after you graduate and get a job with a company; it does not matter how much you got to touch the robot, it does not matter who built the robot or designed it or wired it, it does not matter how many awards you won or how many times your robot lost a match. None of this matters as long as you are still inspired.

The fact that you continue to peruse these forums and post shows me that you are inspired. You may not know how it happened, and might disagree with the methods that your team’s mentors used; but it happened nevertheless, and you are now someone’s success story, and have made Mr. Kamen proud. You may not like his viewpoints, and may not like what has happened in your FIRST carrer, but you have defineately been inspired, and that's all Mr. Kamen really wants of you.

[Jack Jones]

We need to talk. …
Sometimes, this is the big white elephant in the corner that everyone wants to ignore...

I agree Andy. We need to talk about it because it’s more like an 800-pound gorilla sitting there waiting to tear a team apart, or at least to take all the fun out of it.

I also agree with Cory that, “the only thing that will be agreed on is ‘to each their own’”

So, here’s “my own” thoughts as to what this engineering mentor expects to give and gain from the FIRST experience.

For me it’s all defined by the FIRST acronym, with the key words being “Inspiration” and “Recognition”. Many here have stated that it’s all about inspiration. For me, however, it’s more recognition. I want the kids to learn something about what it takes to become an engineer. For them to recognize that they can’t wish, nor boast, nor suppose they know what it takes. I want them to show me they have the aptitude. I want them to know that on their first day, in their first engineering class, they can look to the person on either side and be assured that only one will still be sitting there on the last day of the term. I want them to know that on their first day on the job they will not be asked to form a group with all the other interns and then take a vote on the day’s engineering decisions. I want them to know that I’m not there to entertain them, or to raise their self-esteem, or to let them think for one minute that I can quietly sit back and watch them bollix things up. I want the kids I work with to be the ones who survive that first term and go on to become “real” engineers. On the other hand, I want the ones who twiddle their thumbs to go into something else. So, what I expect to give and gain are one in the same. That is to advance the state of my profession.

If the students, teachers, and parents already know what I’ve learned, then they don’t need me. If they just want someone to find sponsors, buy materials, arrange shop time, or put band-aid fixes on a job not well done, then I don’t need them.

I’d just like to add, before you all begin to take pity on Birmingham-Groves, that this year I was like the Maytag repairman. I never touched the electronics or the programming. I seldom visited the pits and never coached a lick. But that’s only because I had complete confidence in the machine, the plan, the kids, the teachers, and the parents; anything less and I would not been able to keep myself from taunting that 800-pound gorilla.

In my opinion, the right mix of student, mentor, and engineer involvement is when everyone gives it 100%.

[Alexander McGee]

I belong to one of these so-called "Student-Run" Teams. I am a mentor.

The reason that people get bent out of shape about this is that they thing the Engineers do all the work. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't (there are some really talented students in this program people). Regardless, some teams opt to have little or no adult involvement. As Andy stated, these teams generally do not "perform" well at the regional.

I think that the real problem here is everyone's definition of "performance". So what if the robot doesn't match up to the other ones? So what if there is something that was designed/built/engineered better than yours? Does this not inspire our students? Does it not make them want to do better the next year?

I think the real measure of a team is the number of students that it produces into the "Engineering field", and the number of scholarships that those students win. Who really remembers who won x-award at x-regional in 200x? What do these things really matter?

Some teams are set up differently than others. As long as there is still inspiration, to each his own.

[bhweezer]

Mr. Fava, a team mentor, says that with FIRST we get to "work alongside the Michael Jordans of the engineering field." FIRST is all about inspiration. Let the engineers inspire the students, and let the students inspire the engineers.

[mechanicalbrain]

Someone sent me a message (by the way this is a much better method than just repping people) that said my original post was angry and bordered on offensive to mentors and after rereading it while some things were fine they were right! I apologize it was unbecoming and i wish to make a new stab at it and see if i can do a better job... but I'm too lazy and since i think the message i sent that person touches on everything i want to say anyways I'm just going to post a modified version of it. What I'm trying to imprint is that mentors should know when to step back and be mentors. I get discouraged when i go to competitions and see robots obviously designed by grownups. Also i like talking with teams and i find too little of the students at IFI know how the robot they built work. In one thread Ive seen this was placed into a question. "When does the competition become about mentor built robots Vs student built robots?" and its true i see to much mentor involvement on some teams (not all and some of you guys are very good at being mentors). And for every one of those robots i wonder how many ideas that while not initially the best idea could develop into something amazing by the students with encouragement from a mentor. Look at this from two different views. One the mentor who works hard to help the students even comes in out of work to do extra work. Its admirable and shows their devotion to the team and to helping out students. Now look at it from a student. The mentors help with with things that might have been overall better left to the kids especially if it would be a valuable learning experience (if your a mentor and your doing something for a team that you know how to do but your not teaching others than this might be one of those times). Also in the end a student looks at a robot and can see exactly what he did. Yes a student can say its cool but an they call it their own? Can they say exactly what their part is in its development and design? This doesn't just extend to mentors though. I'm an experienced student and because of that i catch myself falling into the same trap. Is this going to be "My" robot or the "Teams" robot. Yes they may go along with it because its a cool idea but what have they contributed to make it theirs also. The last thing i want is to offend mentors I'm trying to stress that maybe mentors should look at themselves and ask are they teachers or builders? I really don't want to belittle the mentors contributions, their great and i have lots of respect for them! Its just the pains of knowing things and trying to have everyone else reap the benefit. Well that was it slightly modified to this thread. I just think that mentors should take more of a passive role and try to more guide the students to get their invention working. Uh i guess this is it in a bottle (and applies to all people with knowledge) just because you know a better way IS it a better way? I know that this whole post isn't indicative of ALL mentors on FIRST teams and maybe you don't agree (you can indicate this with a message to me not reps please) but really look at all I'm saying and maybe evaluate the merit of what I'm saying and if you yourself have noticed similar things. I hope that was better and please recognize parts of my origional post could have been better thought out.

[Rich Kressly]

Baker, you're making my head hurt and it's only August!!!!

Yes, balance seems ideal to me too Andy, yet inspiration happens on the individual level. In twelve years of teaching I've had more than a handful of rather humbling yet remarkable experiences. Old students coming back to visit telling me things that I did in the past, both positive and negative that either helped them or hurt them in the path toward their individual futures. Every time I have one of these experiences I get to learn all over again that the most difficult task of all is understanding what inspires each individual student. A single way of doing something will do wonders for one student, while it may stunt the growth of another.

Thus my answer lies in the "f" word - FLEXIBLE. What works one year, doesn't work the next. What works for one student, doesn't work for the next student. Students graduate, they mature, they change, new kids come in. At least once a year, in a perfect world, every team would reevaluate all of their strengths, weaknesses, and preferences for learning, and build a model for that year based on the current make up of the group and all of its individuals. The idea is to maximize the experience for everyone involved, including so called "grown-ups" and inspiring each and every student on the team.

Therefore, I submit that NO person or team should EVER look at another person or team and say, "It shouldn't be done that way." It's nearly impossible to know what works for every student on your own team. How on earth is it possible to know what works for someone else's?

My .02, now go back to work Andy and quit thinking of stuff that makes my head hurt in August.