[Poll] YMTC: Would this team structure function?

[Adam Richards]

Hey everyone, I was just thinking, and I want your opinions on if this hypothetical team structure would work.

~

The team is an after school course credit limited to 15-20 kids, split up into two groups (lets call them Red and Blue). A college mentor and a school teacher mentor Red on even days of the month, and Blue on odd. Kids from the other group are not allowed to show up to help on the day they are not assigned to. Other than through the two mentors, there is no major discussion between members of the two groups. The teacher controls the team, making all the major decisions and making the college mentor subservient to him/her. The students are graded upon attendance and the teacher's opinion on them and their work.

~

Yes, I know there are similar threads that debate the general issue of "Student/Mentor", but this thread is only for THIS hypothetical team structure.

Would this team structure function? Would this be fair on the students?

[Jeff Rodriguez]

It seems like it would be a lot of work for one teacher.

Are these two groups building one robot or two?
If they're building one robot, what would be the benefit of two groups?

I also think it will be very hard, maybe even impossible to keep the students from talking with one another. The students will naturally talk to each other during the school day. The teacher can't regulate ALL communication between the two groups, just what occurs during the different days.

[Adam Richards]

Originally Posted by Ogre

It seems like it would be a lot of work for one teacher.

Are these two groups building one robot or two?
If they're building one robot, what would be the benefit of two groups?

I also think it will be very hard, maybe even impossible to keep the students from talking with one another. The students will naturally talk to each other during the school day. The teacher can't regulate ALL communication between the two groups, just what occurs during the different days.

The two groups would be building one robot, and the teacher would dictate what needs to be done between the two groups.

[Jason Kixmiller]

It would seem that there is a potential loss of learning in the process...I believe that FIRST isn't about learning to be an engineer (that's what a college education is for). I do, however, feel it is very important that the students practice critical thinking skills. What are the potential advantages/disadvantages for this feature of our robot? How do we choose what strategy to follow in different scenarios? What systems will be lessened due to the demands of another system...

It would also seem very difficult to have the 2 student groups come to a team consensus on the design and strategy of the robot. Would the odd-day students be as interested or dedicated if their decisions and conclusions were overturned by the even-day students?

It's really hard to say...definitely an interesting idea, though.

[StephLee]

Reasons I think it wouldn't work:

~Students will resent many aspects of it, including: being graded, being scheduled without their input, having too little input in the design of the robot, too little control of what really should be their team.
~Too much work for one mentor.
~Too few mentors specified.
~Are they making two robots or one?
~If one: Why two groups? Why can't they work together? Communication between the subgroups would be a problem; one team can't really function in two separate halves that don't interact.
~If two: Two teams in one school would put a major strain on resources.

[KenWittlief]

I met a teacher at Epcot one year at the championship. He had started a team all by himself, just him and the students.

All I can say is that poor man needed a serious hug! He was one twitch away from a nervous breakdown.

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Adam Richards

The two groups would be building one robot, and the teacher would dictate what needs to be done between the two groups.

I don't see where either group would gain anything, but both would definitely lose.

Consider the implications of the "shooter mechanism" rule that is being discussed currently. The team needs to come to a quick decision as how best to accomodate the rule clarification. Splitting the team in half, would be like Congress trying to get agreement on a bill between the House and Senate -- It just doesn't happen quickly enough.

At competition, suddenly you meet the other half of your team, and you have introductions such as, "So, you're the guy who broke the shaft key that I had to replace." Or, "I spent every one of my days reprogramming the code, correcting your mistakes."

No, part of this program is building a "team", and that cannot be built without interaction on some level.

[IraJason]

There are just a few things about this which would make it very difficult for everybody:

-Not being able to communicate means that all changes and modifications to the robot would have to be conveyed through the mentor, and believe me, a lot of stuff can change over a day. Things would change on the robot between each red and blue meeting and quite a bit of time would have to be taken to discuss what has been changed, how it affects the design, and how it works. Also, any potential problems in the design should be shared amongst all members, so that way everybody is up to date on what needs to be tweaked and whether the problem is known or not.

Our team has people come in and work whenever they have free time, and if were not able to communicate with each other, it would seriously affect our pace. Its better trying to keep everyone on the same page rather then having two seperate teams who each have their own agenda.

Also, having set days where certain people come in might not be the best idea. Its probably different with bigger teams that have 30/40 people, but having as many people as possible who can make an educated dicision is better then just a few, especially when you have to make a critical design change. One person may have that one great idea to fix the design, but they are sceduled to be there on the day the problem is discovered.

Last thing, forcing a whole bunch of things upon a single mentor can be a bit much, especially when they have to manage two seperate groups working on the same exact project. Your mentor is like a computer, you put in too much information for them to handle, and they are going to fry a circuit or two. I know at least our mentors prefer the students help them out in their discisions on what should be done, rather then have it all forced upon them.

However, since this actually counts as a class (with I'm presuming a dedicated teacher/mentor), rather then an afterschool activity, it could probably be structured a little bit differently then some other teams. But having two seperate groups that have pretty much no interaction with each other is probably not the best of plans.