FAHA: Adult Coach on Drive Team

[Josh Goodman]

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=67426

Old Thread worth reviving. A lot of discussion here. I will throw out my viewpoint and never open this thread again lol. I don't want to get back into this debate (and sometimes argument). I think that it is truly up the team what they want to do. I personally am a coach. I have been since sophomore year. I plan on continuing into college as a coach. Our first year, we had a mentor coach and for the rest of the years we've had students. I know some amazing student and adult coaches out there. It's all up to the team and what they're looking for. Some student coaches are better than mentors and vice versa. Karthik said it best. "Communication is key in a drive team. You need to pick someone the drivers respect as a coach." For most cases, this is usually an adult. But sometimes they are not the best ones for the job.

[DonRotolo]

We went though this same discussion this year, all of the arguments were the same, and the conclusion was in favor of a student coach.

But, consider that our team does not consider winning a regional as a very high priority. Not that winning is bad, or teams that focus on winning are bad - it's just how our team works, and our values. Like smurfgirl wrote, it depends upon the dynamics of the team.

Banning adult coaches would be a mistake, as the opportunity for adult coaching & mentoring that some teams use here is very valuable.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Our team's students have typically decided in the past few years that one of our explicit goals is to win competitions. It turns out that we have a highly experienced adult mentor with a good sense of strategy who commands respect on the field as a drive coach. Not to take advantage of that resource would reduce our competitiveness.

This seems to be a universal thought in this thread so far. In short, I hear "we use an adult because it gives us a better chance to win". My take on this: Who Cares? Honestly, FIRST isn't about winning. It is about learning. If you sincerely think that choosing an adult as coach improves the learning of the team as a whole, I respect your decision. However, if it is just to win, I ask this...Who is winning? If you are hindering learning, then the team loses. I have said it many times, but I'll say it again. I feel more like a "winner" when the students learn and we place last, then I would ever feel going to nationals if I did anything to hinder education.

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19

Over the past couple years in a large number of Dean's speaches we have heard him adress teams who are student run, no adult mentors. He says they're missing the point.

I think Dean is missing a point. Honestly, I know I'm speaking heresy here. Sure, for some the point of FIRST is about the adults working side by side with students. But for some of us, FIRST is about something else. For me it is about educating the students. Period. I honestly don't care what Dean or Woodie expect for people to get out of FIRST. Often a person gets something different out of a gift then is expected by the giver. I think the point of FIRST is different for each and everyone of us.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Molten

This seems to be a universal thought in this thread so far. In short, I hear "we use an adult because it gives us a better chance to win". My take on this: Who Cares? Honestly, FIRST isn't about winning. It is about learning. If you sincerely think that choosing an adult as coach improves the learning of the team as a whole, I respect your decision. However, if it is just to win, I ask this...Who is winning? If you are hindering learning, then the team loses. I have said it many times, but I'll say it again. I feel more like a "winner" when the students learn and we place last, then I would ever feel going to nationals if I did anything to hinder education.

I'm rather tired of hearing the "FIRST isn't about winning, it's about learning" argument.
First off, FIRST's primary mission 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."
While learning may be part of the way your team achieves that goal, FIRST isn't "about learning." The word learning isn't even in their mission statement. To say that it FIRST is about learning is merely creating a straw-man argument, and to imply that students don't learn while there is a mentor-coach is ignorant.
Beyond that, the FIRST Robotics Competition is just that, a COMPETITION. Winning is the ultimate goal of the competition, and to ignore that is nothing short of foolish. The competition aspect of FIRST is one the most powerful inspirational tools it has, and it is part of what sets it apart from many other engineering programs.

Originally Posted by Molten

I think Dean is missing a point. Honestly, I know I'm speaking heresy here. Sure, for some the point of FIRST is about the adults working side by side with students. But for some of us, FIRST is about something else. For me it is about educating the students. Period. I honestly don't care what Dean or Woodie expect for people to get out of FIRST. Often a person gets something different out of a gift then is expected by the giver. I think the point of FIRST is different for each and everyone of us.

And what part of having a mentor coach prevent students from being educated? If you read this thread, and more importantly the one that was linked three posts in a row (by Karthik, Josh, and myself), you'll see that many teams use the adult coach as way to further educate their students.
Would you want a student teaching a calculus class instead of a teacher so that student can get a better education? No, you want the person most qualified to educate and help the students succeed.

[JaneYoung]

Build tough and come to play - is a phrase I use a lot when working with teams. I also use it at work when talking to and training staff members. I also use it in my personal life. It can convey a lot in a brief message.

'Build tough and come to play' can be applied to the FRC team structure. It's that simple. Use your best assets, they are there at your disposal. The rest will take care of itself.

[ParkerF]

I respect the decisions of teams on both sides of the fence. Many posters here have made the point that a coach needs to be chosen on a basis that fortifies the dynamic and goals of the team and I can not agree more. I can see where students can learn as a coach, and where students can learn by being coach by an adult. I do want to make the point that in both cases, there will be a few lessons unlearned. Unfortunately, we must accept this, and determine which is better for the team as a whole.

However, I want to give everyone another student's perspective based on my own experiences. In the case of an adult coach, the drivers are able to soak in a portion of the same lessons they could learn as the coach themselves. On 148, the drivers are often left to speak with other teams and form alliance cohesion for upcoming matches while our adult coach is off doing other things. As a two year JVN coached driver, I'm learning how to act, speak, and conduct myself as a professional in a gracious manner on the field, off the field, and in communication with other teams, just like I would coaching*.

There are simply too many ways drive teams can work to determine one specific way of running one. I can only speak for myself, but I feel that with an adult coach on 148, I have in no way missed out on any lessons I could possibly learn. I'm not sure that I would feel comfortable or be trusting enough of another student to coach me through matches. However, I have had the great pleasure of working under JVN, a great teacher and friend, so my opinion may be biased.

Wanting to win isn't necessarily a bad thing either. You can't say that winning and learning are opposites and take away from each other, because they simply don't. Winning will teach you to act with grace, professionalism, and humility. A large lesson every student on 148 had to learn last year was to win with humility. One way that some people look at winning and losing is which one you have more fun with. Personally, I have more fun when I'm doing well, whether it be sports or robotics. Winning builds confidence, and gives students an incentive to work hard. Many Wranglers worked harder than ever this year, soaked in everything they could from our mentors, and learned how to work hard under pressure, all because they wanted to go for two. Winning can be a tool of inspiration. Inspiration is what this is all about after all right?

-------------------

*148 is blessed enough to be able to compete in the VEX Robotics Competition with multiple robots. We take this opportunity to use student coaches, and I'd like for every team to think about using this as an identical opportunity for themselves. If your students feel that they want to be a coach, this is a great chance for them to gain the experiences that student coaches can earn. By competing in both competitions this way, your team will be able to get the best of both worlds. Maybe you can even use this as a chance to evaluate the best way your students learn and make a decision on how to run both teams in the future.


-------------------

...but that's just my view.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Molten

If you sincerely think that choosing an adult as coach improves the learning of the team as a whole, I respect your decision.

I just wanted to make this part of my previous post to stand out. IF you think the adult coach improves the learning, I fully agree you should have the adult as a coach. HOWEVER, if you have some other motive... that is where I am questioning above.

If you believe that you are improving the learning environment in having an adult coach, my previous post has absolutely no relevance to you. That post is for the teams that are doing it solely for the "competitive advantage".

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Would you want a student teaching a calculus class instead of a teacher so that student can get a better education? No, you want the person most qualified to educate and help the students succeed.

Also, I thought I'd give a perspective on this analogy.

I once took a class where the teacher gave a 10-minute lesson at the beginning of the class, and the rest was group learning. I was the head of my group, and so in essence I taught the other 3 a lot of what they learned from the class. I learned far more than I would have sitting and listening. Also, the other 3 got far more one on one attention than they would have gotten otherwise.

Another class I took, was my drafting class. I took 2 years of drafting, and the 3rd year I taught other students. I was given a group of 5 students to teach everything I knew. Of those 5, 2 are some of the best draftsmen that school has ever known. Of the other 3, one switched to machining...one switched schools... and the third I honestly don't know what happened.

In both cases, students learned a lot more from learning from students. I am not saying this is best for all cases. I am just saying that it is best in some situations.

Two ideas from my favorite high school teacher is below:

"If you want to really know something, teach it."
"The best teacher learns as much from the student, as the student learns from the teacher."

I have taken these words and tried to live by them. I think most teachers out there would agree with these statements to some extent.

[Chris is me]

I'm our team's student drive coach (we call it "strategist" so I might be saying that all through the post). We have an all-student drive team on our team by policy; I think it's because our mentors feel it emphasizes that this is "our time to shine" or something. We have a "strategy panel" of mentors and students to review post match plans (and in exceptional cases, such as qualifiers versus 1625, pre-match plans), but inter-team strategy and the actual match is left to us.

I like this arrangement for our team for a number of reasons. I like that it puts more students in a leadership position. I like that it helps with the strategist / driver dynamic; we can pick the best combination for the job of people that "get each other" and work well together, rather than fitting the drivers that work best with a particular coach.

The best thing about it, though, is that it puts us in a position to make mistakes. Competition strategist is a position where you will make mistakes, and making mistakes is the fastest way to learn. I have personally learned more about tactics, communication, and teamwork through my role than I can even imagine, and I can assure you I would not be as satisfied with my final year in FIRST if I wasn't able to do this. Being an FRC competition strategist was a life changing experience for me.

At the same time, I've wondered if we would have done better of our old strategist, who was absolutely legendary, was allowed to be in the position even though he's now a college mentor. Looking through the matches we lost, I can point to 3 errors I made, and I can't help but think if he were strategist we would have been 2nd seed in Minnesota, or 2nd seed on Newton Field. Ultimately, though, I was personally much more inspired by being thrown into the pressure cooker and told to go than if we were x-finalists in Atlanta.

I imagine the job would be better for the drivers if a team leader were up to the plate with them, though. The guys I was screaming at were older than me and team veterans; as the "new kid" it was at times awkward. A leader is needed for the role, that's for sure, and it's a lot more inspiring for the seasoned veteran coach to go "you did good, kid" than for me to hi-five the drivers and go "hell yeah!"

FIRST is about inspiration. I honestly think that students are much more inspired the more involved they are, but it's different for every team.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

it's different for every team.

Sean has a point in saying that the competition aspect is what matters for many teams.

Jason points out that learning matters most for many teams.

Both coincide in teaching. We choose each year whether or not the mentors will coach or if students will coach. Why does it seem that so many people on here tend to assume that the adults do know more than the students in the coaching aspect? Why do so many on here assume that the adults cannot fulfill an adequate learning environment for their students by being coaches.

It doesn't have to be a choice of "your team needs to decide if they want to win or if they want to learn" type of situation. Teams win all the time with both set ups and teams learn with both set ups. You don't have a make compromises in what type of outcome you want. If there's a student who is clearly better at communications on the field and has better strategies than the leading adult, then definitely go for the student. On the flip side if the adult mentor is clearly better at communicating under pressure on the field and has better strategies then choose them. I honestly don't see why it has to be such a big deal or argument. Test out both student and adult coaches and see who fits just as you would with drivers. Mind, you, the drivers should be the ones deciding who was most helpful for them out on the field.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Molten

I think Dean is missing a point. Honestly, I know I'm speaking heresy here. Sure, for some the point of FIRST is about the adults working side by side with students. But for some of us, FIRST is about something else. For me it is about educating the students. Period. I honestly don't care what Dean or Woodie expect for people to get out of FIRST.

Oh, really? I, not Dean, am the one that has made the point during the kick-off broadcast that teams choosing to participate in FIRST without professional mentors to work with their teams are missing the point of the program. I find your counter-assertion intriguing. I would be quite interested in learning how I, or Dean, or Woodie, am all wrong and missing the point of FIRST.

But before you answer, I would urge you to carefully research the entire referenced statement, and the context in which it was delivered. Don't rely on second-hand abstractions or someone else's recollection of what was said. Look into it for yourself, and get some direct knowledge of exactly what was being advocated before you form your opinion (he asked innocently, with a pebble resting in an extended palm).

-dave



.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by dlavery

Oh, really? I, not Dean, am the one that has made the point during the kick-off broadcast that teams choosing to participate in FIRST without professional mentors to work with their teams are missing the point of the program. I find your counter-assertion intriguing. I would be quite interested in learning how I, or Dean, or Woodie, am all wrong and missing the point of FIRST.

.

Mr. Lavery... I'm not sure I understand at all. Your first statement points out that you were the one to make the comments, and suggests that "Molten" was in the wrong for suggesting that it was Dean, but the last statement leads me to believe that you expressed just that: yourself, Dean, and Woody are all in full agreement on the subject.

I believe that any person who states that any specific non-extreme team composition is or is not truly in the spirit of FIRST is, himself, missing the point. I will hold fast to my statement regardless of what that person has done or who he is... Everyone needs to be able to take a step back and examine everything that they say impartially. To do otherwise is bullheaded.


More to the point:

It is my opinion that it is up to each team, and each team alone to make the decision for itself. During my time on team 306, we only had a mentor coach during one round, in one year, and I would not have it any other way. Our student coaches had access to a wealth of information that they would not have otherwise. There is no better teacher than experience. Any adult coach can explain the basic strategies of a given FIRST game to a student. Without the student being in the box, and seeing for him or her self exactly how that theory applies in the real world, they have no way of gaining a true understanding. The only way to do that is through Exposure. Which is exactly why we let every student who wished to stand in the coach box do just that. During real matches, that mattered. I have seen NUMEROUS successful, well sponsored teams that use mentor coaches, and do very well for themselves. On the other hand, I have seen numerous drive teams that were afraid to stray from the exact punctuation of their mentor coach's word. I've seen mentor coaches step forward and grab controls when the driver didn't do as he or she was told, and I've seen drivers in tears.

It's called a drive TEAM for a reason, and if an adult coach is using the students as an autonomous extension of himself in the booth, just because the rules prevent him from being a driver... then in my opinion there is something terribly wrong. As I said before, however... Neither extreme is correct. The drive team that takes no input from a coaching mentor is just as poor as the drive team that takes all of its input from one. As I've said before, moderation is key.

Also, according to the FIRST mission statement, it is the job of FIRST "programs" "to foster well rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership." If you ask me, all of those things sound like the job of the coach. In this case, why not let the student learn from hands on experiences exactly what works and what does not?

If your answer was "A shiny gold medallion, and a Trophy!", then you are missing my point entirely.


And one more point that I'd like to talk about. Earlier in this thread it was said that

First off, FIRST's primary mission 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."
While learning may be part of the way your team achieves that goal, FIRST isn't "about learning." The word learning isn't even in their mission statement.

This statement doesn't make any sense to me either. The actual word "Learning" isn't in the statement, but everyone with a fifth grade vocabulary should know what a synonym is. To "Inspire young people to be science and technology leaders" is to inspire young people to become something they currently aren't, through the entire learning experience. Learning is the core of both science and technology, and if you have forgotten that, they you need to take a long hard look at exactly why you are in this field. "Engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills" So, putting them through mentor based programs that teach (yes, build in this sentence means teach) science, engineering, and technology skills."that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership." In this statement, too... there is mention of learning. The word foster means to advance or cultivate, and when applied to the terms in the above sentence, cannot be taken to mean anything else.

You simply cannot say that the mission statement says nothing about learning. It is referenced in almost every line. It isn't simply part of the way your team realizes their goal, it is the only one mentioned in the mission statement.

[EricH]

Cody: I am reasonably certain that you have interpreted Dave's statement correctly. It would make sense for all three of them to agree on this topic; noting that two of the three have relatives involved either as students or as mentors that were once students, I would say that they have some experience.

I would agree with your statement that it depends on the team. In fact, this is my standard answer for any team-makeup related questions. It's not for one team to decide for another; it's for each team to decide for themselves.

The mission statement says "to inspire". You can be inspired without learning. A pep talk, an example of a heroic move in battle or on the sports field... those inspire you, do they not? Yet they do not teach you.

However, as soon as you add the "mentor-based", teaching (NOT learning--I'll get to that in a minute) is added to the equation. For you cannot mentor without teaching. Not in the traditional "lecture" sense of the word, but in the practical, "this is how I do this" demonstration sense.

Now, teaching != learning and learning != teaching. If I were to teach someone, I would either tell them or show them something, new or not. They then have the choice to learn or not. If they choose not to learn, I cannot force them to. I can ask them not to come if they don't want to learn, as they may easily become a distraction because they are not paying attention or listening, but I cannot force learning. If, however, a student wants to learn and pays attention, they will learn from my teaching. Do you see the difference now?

So FIRST's mission statement is not about learning. It's about inspiring through teaching. Whether or not the students learn is up to them--but I can tell you, the less you put in, the less you get out.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

This statement doesn't make any sense to me either. The actual word "Learning" isn't in the statement, but everyone with a fifth grade vocabulary should know what a synonym is. To "Inspire young people to be science and technology leaders" is to inspire young people to become something they currently aren't, through the entire learning experience. Learning is the core of both science and technology, and if you have forgotten that, they you need to take a long hard look at exactly why you are in this field. "Engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills" So, putting them through mentor based programs that teach (yes, build in this sentence means teach) science, engineering, and technology skills."that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership." In this statement, too... there is mention of learning. The word foster means to advance or cultivate, and when applied to the terms in the above sentence, cannot be taken to mean anything else.

You simply cannot say that the mission statement says nothing about learning. It is referenced in almost every line. It isn't simply part of the way your team realizes their goal, it is the only one mentioned in the mission statement.

Since I was the one referenced in this statement, though anonymously, I feel I should elaborate. I would also appreciate not having my intelligence compared to a 5th grader, let's keep this civil.

Inspiration and learning are not directly related. FIRST doesn't have to, nor should it aim to, educate students. It may provide an arena for students to apply the material they picked up in physics, computer science, or trig, but FIRST is not responsible for teaching it. FIRST is aiming to inspire students to venture into science and engineering. FIRST wants students to take related-coursework, go to college, and study a related major.
Yes, learning is related to science and technology, but it is NOT equivalent to the inspiration "of young people to be science and technology leaders." FIRST aims to give rise to, bring about, or cause these young people to become leaders in science and technology. FIRST's aim is not to teach them the material.

FIRST clearly states that their programs are "mentor-based" and for teams to turn away mentorship in favor of a "learning experience" clearly violates the spirit and mission of FIRST.
That's is not to say that student coaches violate the spirit of FIRST, but teams should carefully consider the reasons they're doing it (though there are plenty of very valid reasons).

I'm also not saying that learning isn't an important and very relevant issue in FIRST. But it is NOT the primary issue. I don't agree with teams that prioritize learning above inspiration, but that's not to say there's only one way to run a team.

I was on a team that has student coaches, and was a student coach myself for two years. I obviously see the potential and real value in putting students in that position. But I also see the value in mentors in that position, and I definitely learned a lot from the mentor coaches on other teams that I worked with and against.

[Cody Carey]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Since I was the one referenced in this statement, though anonymously, I feel I should elaborate. I would also appreciate not having my intelligence compared to a 5th grader, let's keep this civil.

Inspiration and learning are not directly related. FIRST doesn't have to, nor should it aim to, educate students. It may provide an arena for students to apply the material they picked up in physics, computer science, or trig, but FIRST is not responsible for teaching it. FIRST is aiming to inspire students to venture into science and engineering. FIRST wants students to take related-coursework, go to college, and study a related major.
Yes, learning is related to science and technology, but it is NOT equivalent to the inspiration "of young people to be science and technology leaders." FIRST aims to give rise to, bring about, or cause these young people to become leaders in science and technology. FIRST's aim is not to teach them the material.

FIRST clearly states that their programs are "mentor-based" and for teams to turn away mentorship in favor of a "learning experience" clearly violates the spirit and mission of FIRST.
That's is not to say that student coaches violate the spirit of FIRST, but teams should carefully consider the reasons they're doing it (though there are plenty of very valid reasons).

I'm also not saying that learning isn't an important and very relevant issue in FIRST. But it is NOT the primary issue. I don't agree with teams that prioritize learning above inspiration, but that's not to say there's only one way to run a team.

I was on a team that has student coaches, and was a student coach myself for two years. I obviously see the potential and real value in putting students in that position. But I also see the value in mentors in that position, and I definitely learned a lot from the mentor coaches on other teams that I worked with and against.

To start off, I would like to note that the fifth grade vocabulary comment was meant to gauge the simplicity of the Idea I was trying to state, and not an insult to your own intelligence. After reading it, I realize that it did sound sarcastic and rude, but that was not my intent. I apologize.

Now onto bigger and better things.

You are absolutely correct. I can't believe that I had never thought of it in this light, and truly feel humbled by your post. It clearly states your argument in such a way that (Forgive the reference) a Fifth grader could understand. I can't believe that it took this long for me to see. FIRST is only the entity that holds the competition. It's soul purpose is to showcase students what engineers can do. The student learning part isn't necessary.

While I can now see your argument, I can also see the reasons by which I had been unable to comprehend your point. I had been assuming that FIRST robotics referred to the organization that brought the teams together, and as the Ideals of each team that participates. In all actuality, though, it only refers to the organization, and not technically to the team Ideals.

On my team, It was clearly the main purpose of the program to teach students about engineering, and being a productive person. We learned about CAD, machining, tools, electronics, programming, and too much more to list. While doing so, we also learned leadership, strategy, confidence, and how to communicate.

This was all taught to me by my team, and not FIRST. Without FIRST, I could not have had the experience that I did, but the teaching, and learning part were all done by the teams. Whether it was my own team in our work room, or another team on the playing field, FIRST had nothing to do with it. I just assumed because of how much I learned that It was taught to me by FIRST, and that by proxy, the FIRST experience was centered around learning. When really, that learning that I did wasn't required by FIRST.

This brings up a whole plethora of questions to be answered in my head... and I won't any further off topic in this thread, but may start another.

[Stu Bloom]

Sean, Cody, I am glad to see you two getting together on this.

I strongly agree with Sean's logic, and the points he makes in his posts on this subject, and I would like to add just a couple of additional comments.

I have always thought/said that FIRST is NOT about teaching/learning, but about inspiring. And whatever specific methods a team chooses to accomplish this goal are of secondary importance. That being said, I don't think there is any way a student OR mentor could participate on an FRC team and not learn a great deal. While not included in the stated goals/mission of FIRST, this is an extremely valuable side-effect of the program.

I also believe that the competitive aspect of FIRST - the opportunity to compete with your creation and win, and the desire to do so, is a huge part of what makes FIRST so special.

Besides what is printed in the rule book, there is very little in FIRST that is clearly black/white - right/wrong (and even much of the written word is often debatable) but I truly do believe that all of us mentors/teachers are involved in this endeavor for the right reasons, and as long as students are positively impacted then we are "doing good".