Student / Mentor, desgn/build Poll

[Steve W]

I guess that I should stop watching and put in my thoughts. The reason for this poll is NOT to say which is best. I started this thread as a way to have people think about both sides of an already running thread. You see, there is no true or right answer except the one that applies to your team at this time. Next year it may different. As members of FIRST we must always be looking forward to new ideas and ways of doing things. So many people have posted that they would not chose between the worse of 2 evils. This however is life. We sometimes do have to chose the lesser of 2 evils.

All I ask is that we all look at all sides of the discussions. Push our limits. Try to see things from the other side and most of all, do not condemn others for how or why they do things. This is FIRST, let's grow!

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Steve W

So many people have posted that they would not chose between the worse of 2 evils. This however is life. We sometimes do have to chose the lesser of 2 evils.

No, this poll is not life. This poll is an artificial and unreasonable limitation of our options. Life permits us other choices. My choice is to reject the question as both misguided and unproductive.

[Veselin Kolev]

I actually think this is a good poll question. The question is not "which of these two would you want to do", the question is "which of these two is better". Anyway, on the answer the question.

I think student designed / mentor built is the way to go. I am the "engineer"/mentor/machinist of my team. The kids from the high school design their own robot, and all I can do is help make sure it gets built. If it needs CNC work, I go get it CNC'd. If it needs to be watercut, I go get it watercut. The reason I build a lot of the robot is because none of the students know how to machine, and the school they go to does not have any kind of shop (and also does not like the liability involved with them working at my shop). I stick around during the design period and give tips on how to make the same gearbox or arm with less fabrication time. This not only helps the kids learn about simplicity in design, it also makes my job easier.

Now, once all the machinists have fabricated all the parts, we hand them to the students and let them assemble. Of course, you run into slight problems, plates need to be filed, screws need to be shortened, holes for rivets need to be drilled, stuff that students can do. Through the experience of assembly, the students learn how to design and build robots more efficiently. A student that is designing a drivetrain for the first time doesnt need to know how to weld or use a mill. When that student is a junior or a senior and is themself teaching younger students on design, then they can be taught fabrication if they want. However, I think it is very important that students first learn about design. Of course, different teams work differently, so this is just my opinion based on how my team works. I can understand if a person from another team would answer the exact opposite.

[savage]

all that i have to say is the last year 1368s students built there bot completely by them selves no one over the age of 18 putting a finger on their robot

congrats to 1368 and good luck this year


Ben white former member of 1368 now in Isreal

[Starke]

i will not vote because i have not seen any of the two answers myself. i recall #340 mentors sitting int he back of the room, doing nothing but watching the kids come up with ideas and figure them out. all the mentors did was guide us where we needed assistance. like one of the mentors taught me how to thread a hole correctly. beforehand, i always wondered way all of my threads were wrong.

[meaubry]

Given only the 2 choices - either could be correct depending on the what the student is attempting to get out of the program. Some will learn more by design and don't want to build (nothing wrong with that), while others don't care much for design but really get into building (nothing wrong with that either)
My choice would have been - Engineer/Mentor/Student Designed and Engineer/Mentor/Student Built? In my humble opinion that is the best of all worlds and there shouldn't be a need to pick 1 or the other of the 2 choices that cannot optimize the overall experience of participating in both the Design and Build.

[KenWittlief]

It just occurred to me, another way to look at this:

1. students do not get to do any designing. This would be equal to FIRST providing specific plans for a robot, and every team must build the same exact robot. No variations allowed (no designing). There would be lots of machining and wiring and assembling and painting involved, but the end result would be akin to the IROC racing, or design-class sailing events: everyone has the same machine, and it all comes down to how well you assemble and drive it.

2. Students do not do any "building". This would be equal to FIRST providing a versatile kits of parts that contains everything you need, no other parts or fabrication allowed. The team could design the parts into any type of robot they like. The result would be like Lego League on a bigger scale.

This analogy is not perfect, but I can see that some people would prefer one over the other.

[John Gutmann]

If engineers design it it is an engineer's robot not a student's robot because the engineers know how every should and will work usually and they usually find the easy way to do something. If the students build it they are just following directions.

You can compare it to FLL. do the kids in FLL build a lego robot of those pictoral direct or doi they actually design and build it? If they built them from directions FLL would just be one big lego set that competes with a predetermined outcome.

[Elgin Clock]

With our current setup and team inner workings, I don't think I can even choose one of those.

For us, we have the kids think up different ideas, and then both students and engineers work together to refine those into designs, and basically the engineers are there to help refine and make it work.
Entering our 8th year as a team in 2006, we have semi-standards for our robot that we know works, and we try and convey those as soon as possible to the students before build season starts in case we use those standards.
(ie: chassis and drive designs, and preffered 237 material selections)

Then the students do as much fabrication as their skill sets allow them too, and if something is too advanced, they either help up to a certain point and then watch and thus hopefully learn what the can't do, or help as much as they can to finish it for the most part.

So, basically the students as a (whole group) lay out a a rough draft, then the mechanical team (students and mentors) design the inner workings of that basic idea, and then the mechanical students work with our engineers to refine it like a huge engineering process... (Go figure!! lol)

I think that has worked very well for us in the mechanical aspect of the robot at least.

I can't really speak for electrical because A) I'm not that involved with electrical, and B) It's a whole different ballgame and not really based on designs and making it work, but brute force and dealing with the available resources and then making it work. lol

[Starman]

I don't know how it SHOULD be, but on our team the students do as much of the design and building as they can. The mentors show them how to solve the problems, like helping to figure the size of an air cylinder needed at to move a load with a given air pressure, but we want to kids to do as much as they can. We even expect them to handle the role of coach during competition, something unheard of in FIRST land.

While it is true that engineers now design and give the plans to technicians to build, it can be a very humbling experience for an engineer to try to build something. When that happens, the engineer often develops respect for the tradesman and learns an awful lot that makes him a better designer.

When the students do the design and building, they are developing valuable life skills that will give them confidence as adults to tackle jobs around the house or in the workplace. Our robot last year was built almost entirely by a team or girls who had never before used power tools such as drill presses, belt sanders, cut-off saws, etc. Without the robot project to give them this experience, they probably would have never learned how to use these tools. And guess what, one of these girls has already chosen to enter engineering as a career and is in college. Another, a senior, hopes to go to an engineering school next fall. I wonder if that would have happened if the mentors had designed and built the robot for them?? What do you think!

Our students have become aggressive about wanting to do the work to the point that they really get upset if a mentor steps up to do a job for them. I like that and wish all students could have that feeling of ownership and pride. Sadly, I have seen teams where the students were only allowed to touch the robot controls during competition. The rest of the time adults worked on the robot. One team I know even posts pictures in their pit of all the adult engineers on their team, but no pictures of students. How sad.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

I think any adult involved in First should take a minute and go look up the definition of Mentor and the origin of the word. Then if you see it as I do this poll is unanswerable.

I concur wholeheartedly. On our team, the students join for different reasons: some want to do the building, some want to do the designing. The mentors are there to make sure everyone's safe, and to help out when called upon. But other teams have other priorities. It all boils down to what FIRST is for. In my opinion, it's to inspire the students. If that means mentor designed/student built, then that is the correct way. If it means student designed/mentor built, then that is the correct way. To me, the only wrong way is if the mentors do both, because then it becomes their project, and not the students', which is NOT the purpose of FIRST.

[Alex Burman]

I say neither and both.

It should be both designed and built by the students. The engineers are there to provide support, ideas, tips, and help if needed. But not to do everything in one area

[Stu Bloom]

I was a bit disturbed to see this thread resurrected after lying dormant for almost three weeks. I basically agree with Alan in that I think this question is both misguided and unproductive. However I will concede that my uneasiness could be a positive sign that my ideas are being challenged as I am being forced to consider options I don't like ...

As I read the responses here one thing strikes me. Most of the posts refer to "teaching" the students in one way or another. I challenge all to remember:

For INSPIRATION and RECOGNITION of Science and Technology

I don't see anything there about teaching or education. The original goal/purpose of FIRST was to inspire students to pursue careers in science and technology by having them work with engineers and immersing them in technology. In my opinion that hasn't changed, nor should it. I would agree with most here that maximum inspiration will come from maximum hands-on involvement in every aspect of this robotics project that we all love. I still don't think this poll is "answerable" because I could never choose between the two options offered. But every team will find their own way down this path and figure out how they can best inspire their students.

[Jon Jack]

On our team we try to treat everyone equal so for us we design Student/Engineer/Mentor and build Student/Engineer/Mentor...

[Ebolagirl]

Where's the choice for student designed/student built with a little bit of mentor guidance? After all, according to the Oxford dictionary the definition of mentor is one who is a “experienced and trusted advisor”. And the definition of advise is to “counsel, guide, steer; caution, admonish, warn; suggest”. In neither of those definitions does it indicate that a mentor is someone who “does”. They are merely a source of guidance, and advisor. And that is exactly what our mentor is. He is an advisor and only that. He never lays a finger on our robot.

Fr- “in the interest or benefit of”
I:nspiration- “creative force or influence stimulating creativity”
And
R:ecognition- “realize or discover the nature of”
Of
S:cience- “branch of knowledge involving systemized observation and experimentation”
And
T:echnology-“study or use of the mechanical arts and applied sciences”

Nowhere in the FIRST acronym does it indicate how inspiration and recognition should occur. So it is difficult to justify either student or engineer designed/built. But, as we all know, the best way to learn is through FIRST hand experience, and the best way for a student to acquire that experience is through both the conceptual design process and through the actual hands on building (Paulo Freire would admire FIRST in this regard because it removes all “banking” in the unavoidable educational experience).