The "FIRST" experience?

[Cody Carey]

Hi everyone,

First things first... I have to cover my bases. I am not bringing my thoughts up to start an argument. I am bringing them up because I recently had a change in my thought process brought on by a discussion here on CD, and I am currently in turmoil as to what conclusions I should draw from these changes. Anyone who believes that FIRST is about learning rather than competition might benefit from reading it. It could be lengthy... to tell you the truth, I don't know what I'll write yet. I have so many half formed Ideas floating around in my head that it is hard to say, but I'll try. This post will deal with how I used to think about FIRST, how I currently view FIRST, and what has changed between them. I'm going to mention many Ideas, and some of them aren't conventionally found here on CD... I just hope that you can read with an open mind, and keep the initial negative reaction flame wars to a minimum. At the same time, though, if you have something negative to say... be my guest. Any and all input is more than welcome.

What I thought of FIRST up until just minutes ago:

From the very beginning of my Lego League career, I have envisioned FIRST ROBOTICS as a tool to teach students about science, technology, and social grace. While I was dealing with Legos, I learned basic structural design, I grasped fully the use of simple machines, and I started thinking about more complex mechanical ideas. While doing that, I learned how to interact with my peers, I gained confidence in my abilities, and finally I learned how to deal with both victory and defeat on the field. I learned that it didn't matter whether I thought something was fair was not. What was done was done, and the only direction left to go was forward. After Legos, I jumped straight to FRC 306. There I honed my knowledge of complex mechanical devices, drafting, material design, 3d modeling, programming, advertising, social interaction, and so much more that the list might just turn out to be three pages long. I was ecstatic every time I was taught something new, or mastered something I already knew. Because the team was comprised of mostly 10th graders my freshman year, each robot we built got progressively more professional. This all lead to the design and construction of our 2007 robot. A machine that not only was beautiful, but performed well and stood up with such robustness that we of team 306 could truly be proud of what we had done.

As I graduated, I could only find myself wishing that I had more time with FIRST. After all, it had taught me so much about engineering, and allowed me to accomplish so much under its protective wing, that I couldn't stand seeing it go. But it did, and I lived, and have continued learning to this day. In my eyes, FIRST had taught me everything that I knew at that point.

What I now think of FIRST:

In my freshman year of College, I was by chance roomed with not one, but two student members of a well known and popular predominantly engineer run team. One was on a mechanical design committee, and one a programming committee. We often talked of FIRST, and it didn't take long to realize that their experience had been so different from mine that they could hardly be compared. Firstly, Neither one of them had any Idea about what went on with the design, or programming of their team's robot during those steps. They were made familiar with the design of the robot only after it had been finalized by the engineers, and were allowed to observe, and sometimes aid, in the construction phase. The mechanical student lead on their team had drilled mounting holes for protective lexan, and that is it... and the programmer had written an autonomous mode that was never used. Both my roommates, and I myself, had seen what engineers can accomplish, and all of us had been inspired to become engineers. This is exactly what FIRST promises in its mission statement, and this is exactly what was delivered in both cases. From an "Engineer" team, and from a "Student" team. Either way works.

After arguing numerous times that FIRST was predominantly about learning, and that the competition was a side pursuit... I sat down and thought long and hard about that particular fact. All it took was one particularly inciteful post here on CD to send my mind in some completely different directions.

The cold hard conclusions that I have come to are shocking to me. They are as follows: FIRST really isn't about learning. FIRST is about inspiring young people to want to learn. It is to show them what engineers do, and persuade them to go to college, to graduate as engineers, and to design our future. FIRST could care less what you've learned along the way in highschool, because you will re-learn it in college anyway. FIRST just provides a game, and a kit of parts.

It is up to each team to teach its members what it will. This is why there are so many polar opposites on CD when this topic is discussed. Because each team gives its members a totally different experience. Some teams Teach that the FIRST experience could not be complete without learning, and some teach that you will do the learning in college, but for now to leave it up to the engineers.


The people who really taught me everything I knew were so much closer that I could kick myself for not having seen this sooner. I learned almost everything I currently know about engineering and design not from FIRST, but from Mr. Ken Morrison, Mr. Tim Tomcho, and Mr. Dan Mather, my devoted mentors. They sat there in the Robotics lab for days, just to see me learn. They showed me everything I needed to know, and the entire while, they were volunteering. The rest I learned from my peers friends and family, from reading, and from mentors belonging to other FRC teams.

I am torn with how to interpret this: FRC 306 was allowed to flourish in my school environment only because the school knew that it was teaching kids valuable information. If the school had thought for one minute that the main point of FIRST was to convince children to follow the path of the engineer, the team may not have even been founded. Instead the money could have been used to buy materials to aid students in their career choice of any type, rather than to try to funnel them all into one.

The only reason my particular team was teaching me so much was because of the mentors who were involved. That means that the school funding went to teaching the students, which according to the school board is what it is supposed to be used for.

Although my mentors used FIRST as a tool for teaching, and the students used it as a tool for learning, there are many teams out there who do not.

I have nothing against either of these types of teams, and I am not downplaying anyone's' experiences in FIRST. I know that the regional and national experiences are a blast. I know how it feels to win matches as a driver, and I know how it feels to watch your team lose from the stands. Those are some of the best times of my life, and I wouldn't give them up for anything. But I could, and have, felt those same feelings while playing sports.

So what makes FIRST worthwhile to students who have no hand in designing or building their robot? To students who don't learn nearly as much about engineering as others do? If it is solely the Competition, and learning doesn't take place. Then wouldn't a student's time and a school's money be better spent on a 6 dollar basketball?


Before you say: "It's the Learning, Cody... Are you daft?", please go reread my entire post. I love the learning, and I think that that is what FIRST should be about. I know that that is exactly why I participated.


Thanks all, and I'm truly looking forward to what you have to say,
-Cody

[Kmo]

That's very interesting thought you have there.

In my opinion I believe FIRST was always made to motivate the young people to want to learn. Depending on where you came from or the community around you, I think that will determine whether the student would be motivated to do more with their life or just go down a road that leads to an dead end.

For example: Let's say that you took a kid from the ghetto and introduce them into FIRST by experiencing team work, the chance to travel out of state or country, to be able to meet people they never met before, and let not forget being able to do things that seem impossible they learn so much more.


I see FIRST more of a motivation to want to do more, to become more then who you are. In a way FIRST does teach us something. It teaches us that we are not limited by anything, if we can put our mind and our heart into it than it is possible to do anything.

Yea my experience was completely different from everyone's but my motivation, my thrive is the same as any other. I wish to be a programmer, before hand I wanted to be a Fashion Designer. In a way I still do only after I get my major in Computer science.

I think Once a person learns to love and appreciate science and technology their minds will be able to open up and understand more.

[Bomberofdoom]

So what makes FIRST worthwhile to students who have no hand in designing or building their robot? To students who don't learn nearly as much about engineering as others do? If it is solely the Competition, and learning doesn't take place. Then wouldn't a student's time and a school's money be better spent on a 6 dollar basketball?

If you get those kids that don't have that knowledge of how to build a robot and involve them with the doing, they'll learn something.

I love this saying from the FIRST guidebook for teams:

"I do, you watch
I do, you help
You do, I help
You do, I watch."

If they want to learn, they need to be involved. Of course, you cannot force kids to be involved soo much and force them to dedicate their whole day just for the team. Try to understand how much the kids in the team want to be involved. You teach them about FIRST and everything and you need to get a feedback from the kids to know what they think about FIRST, the project, about building the robot, the knowledge required, the time spended etc. and then you can see an overall of how much the kids in the team are dedicated for FIRST. Then you can set a plan of how you'll have them involved with FIRST without having kids ditch to playing basketball instead.

You get them to watch/get involved, they learn. It might not be EXACTLY what they learn in college, but it is the basics towards college and for some schools, that's already above the school's curriculum. Otherwise, why would students join that school to join a robotics team? They'd learn more sitting in a desk in front of a teacher, right?

I doubt....

But I quite agree with you that FIRST is also said to be about the inspiration for kids to learn science and engineering. Check the "I" in "FIRST" .
I belive (probablly with some others too) that first is a SOURCE for inspiration in Science and Technology. You need insperation in order to know what you want to do in the future.
You need a goal. You need inspiration.

In the past, kids got inspiration from seeing famous sport characters and said "I wanna' be like him!".

Now FIRST shows kids famous (and real, not phony) pioneers of Science and Technology and some of the kids (if not most) get truly inspired from the things involved with FIRST (some, if not most would say it is the robots ). I believe in some of them are saying in their hearts: "I wanna' be like/better than him!"

[Rich Kressly]

Thanks for raising this topic in a very thoughtful way...

I don't think there is any reason to be torn at all. Everyone's experience is different, but the core mission gets accomplished. You don't even need to try and draw any deep conclusions from it all. FIRST is/was about "learning" for you. And I'm sure those students on the engineer-driven team "learned" some things, but perhaps they weren't design, etc. I run my current team differently than I helped run 103 a few years back. I never bother trying to compare a whole lot or try to evaluate all of FIRST because of these two experiences. I just recognize that I am different than other leaders and the students and community I work in now have different needs. In the end, we're still pursuing the same level of excellence with a social conscious, but we're going about it in a way that makes sense for us as a team and community.

Let me briefly compare my experience as an assistant college baseball coach to illustrate a point...

Every year we brought in a new crop of freshman from many different high school programs. Some of the frosh we took on came from programs where the players made more decisions (catchers/pitchers calling there own pitches, base runners making their own decisions on when to steal, etc) and other frosh came from programs where the coaching staff called every pitch and made all decisions regarding offensive strategy. The end result was having some players who "understood" certain parts of the game, others players who were able to follow instructions, but lacked that understanding, and still others who developed some bad habits because they were given too much responsibility/freedom.

In the end, however, they all developed enough interest, skill, and set of qualifications to become part of our college baseball team. Mission accomplished, correct? However, FIRST students stand a much better chance of actually making a living someday from their passion and skill set than my baseball players ever did.

Relax. Celebrate the differences. Sometimes "evaluation" and "conclusions" are the last things you need.

namaste.

[Mr. Pockets]

It's a very interesting point
When you think about it though, what do we expect FIRST to teach us? FIRST is an organization, not a college course. There is no set curriculum of what you must learn. As a result everybody will learn a different set of things in varying amounts.

Another thing to keep in mind is that people tend to learn what they want to learn. For instance, a person who truly wants to know everything there is to know about trig will have an easier time learning it than someone who doesn't give a hoot about trig. If you can impress on people that something is actually worth learning (maybe through say, a competition) then they will be more inclined to learn it. (sorry if that was redundant.)

[ebarker]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

Hi everyone,

First things firstFIRST really isn't about learning. FIRST is about inspiring young people to want to learn.

Remember from your economics (allocation of resources) the laws of supply and demand !?!?

There are several speeches by Dean that essentially state the purpose of FIRST is increase the 'demand curve' for learning.

If we modify the demand curve then all the rest falls into place.....

[Marc P.]

Cody, I had a similar epiphany after graduating from high school. While you are a student on any given team, your general view of FIRST is confined to how your team operates, whether it be student run, mentor run, or both. The experience on your team sets the benchmark for your view, and a comparison of how other teams are run. Initially, some of the differences may seem unsettling- coming from a team with a student designed and built robot, and seeing the engineer designed/built robots, you tend to wonder if the students on the later team had as enriching an experience as you did. In my first year as a volunteer after graduating, I wondered the same thing. I had the opportunity to see all the teams, without focusing on my own. After a few competitions, and reading some quality discussion here on Chief Delphi, the larger picture started to come into focus.

FIRST's acronym means For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. The inspiration and recognition are the critical parts of the larger picture. The FRC manual doesn't specify exactly how teams are "supposed" to be run, and it doesn't for a very good reason- no two teams are exactly the same. Some teams have access to machine shop equipment right at their schools, others have access to a sponsor's tools, still others have access to a parent or mentor's home workshop. Some only have hand tools and a table in the back of a storage closet. There are teams with dozens of mentors, and teams with one, or even none (and as Dave says, those teams are missing one of the most critical components of FIRST). It would be impossible to come up with a blanket team structure that could cover all of the possibilities and constraints all of the 1600+ teams out there.

If there were some sort of generic guideline to run a team, it would be to Inspire a Recognition of the importance of Science and Technology in students by any means possible.

At the end of the day (or season), if a student has aspirations to go on to college studying science, math, technology, or anything related to engineering, the team was successful. If a student chooses to go on to college to study something else, but still has an appreciation and understanding of science, math, technology, or anything related to engineering, the team was successful. The process for getting to that point doesn't matter too much, and will vary greatly from team to team. As long as there was some sort of positive impact on the students, FIRST's mission was accomplished.

[JaneYoung]

One of the areas that I've been thinking in has to do with limitations. We are human beings and often, we seem to like an organized approach to problem solving that includes staying within our comfort zone. FRC offers opportunities to move beyond organized approaches such as same old same old, this is the way it is done in other competitions, let's not change the status quo. By offering these opportunities, it moves all those interested in delving into the possibilities outside the comfort zone, therefore, into thinking and problem solving outside of the box.

I'm not sure I can say what FIRST is attempting or what the purpose is or where all of this is going to lead. I do know that the concept of inspiration and recognition of science and technology is more than spin, more than an elevator speech, more than a powerpoint on a screen. Actualizing it by getting educators and programs like 4-H involved is where the rubber meets the road. Bringing the educated skills and innate talents of the mentors on board enables FRC to explore the possibilities and opportunities, applying them in competitions and real world solutions.

Your thread, Cody, shows that you have continued to learn and to explore the possibilities that FIRST has presented to you. That's no small thing. It's good to see your thoughtful posts again.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

I am torn with how to interpret this: FRC 306 was allowed to flourish in my school environment only because the school knew that it was teaching kids valuable information. If the school had thought for one minute that the main point of FIRST was to convince children to follow the path of the engineer, the team may not have even been founded. Instead the money could have been used to buy materials to aid students in their career choice of any type, rather than to try to funnel them all into one.

One career choice? How is trying to persuade people into becoming engineers trying to funnel them into one career choice. Saying you want to become an engineer is exactly like saying you want to become a scientist. You have now just narrowed down your career path 20,000 choices. There are five or six major branches of engineering depending on whether or not you consider computer engineering seperate enough from electrical. These field are electrical, mechanical, industrial, civil, computer, and chemical. Those are subdivied down into even more seperate fields.

[Bertman]

Cody,
sounds like you had a wonderful experience that worked for you. Had you been on an engineer driven team you most certainly would have had a different experience. Keep in mind that you don't know what you don't know. When anybody joins a team they come in with certain preconceived notions that almost never completely match that reality. That is fine. The process is a filter and, I believe, each finds his/her own path. Take what you have learned, build on it and share it. Others will do the same. Enjoy the journey.

[Chris Hibner]

Wow, that was an extremely thoughtful post. Coming to meaningful insights and being able to express those thoughts in a clear manner is a pretty great skill to have, and one that isn't really taught very easily.

I just want to make one comment about those that think the competition aspect is important. I am a big proponent of FIRST as a competition. I embrace the competitiveness. However, I (and I'm sure most others involved in FIRST that embrace the competitive aspect), don't do it simply because it's a competition. Like you said, just go buy a basketball.

Those of us that embrace the competition do so because being competitive enhances the learning and the inspiration. Think about it: how hard are you going to try and how much are you going to learn if you don't care? On the other hand, if you just want to beat Wildstang really really badly, how much extra time and effort are you going to put in. Furthermore, do you think you'll learn more after putting in all of that extra time? I think the answer is "yes".

Anyway, I am involved in FIRST because I think it's important to help inspire the students to achieve more than they might have without FIRST. That being said, I think the role that the competition plays is an important one, and we all wouldn't get nearly as excited without it.

[Chris is me]

This post is going to pale in comparison to the OPs, but I kind of approach the "FIRST is about Inspiration" line in a different way.

Personally, I've been much more inspired to pursue engineering because of the hands on learning experience I've had with it. I don't really even get how FIRST can only be about inspiring engineering, where nothing else matters... Honestly, I'd probably be more inspired by Battlebots than by watching my mentors build a robot. Battlebots is more exciting

Obviously, FIRST experiences are different for everyone. Ultimately, FIRST is about inspiring, and nothing else is more important. Perhaps this is just crafty logic to get at what I think FIRST should be, but I've always been of the opinion that you're much more inspired if it's your work on the field.



Thus for me, teaching and inspiring are basically the same thing. You can be inspired without learning anything, but then how would that be different than just watching matches on Nasa TV, or Battlebots? Watching Battlebots as a kid made me go "I wanna do that!", but I wasn't really motivated to pursue it very much other than thinking "wow, that is cool". But when working with mentors, teaching me engineering, leadership, and problem solving skills, the whole experience changes. When you see a net result that you can say is yours succeeding in competition, you look at yourself and your hard work and go "Look at what I can accomplish!".

I can say that if I didn't learn basic fabrication and design skills, and if I didn't have input on the robots I've helped build, I probably wouldn't be an engineer.

Basically, I agree with the OP. I don't see how FIRST works without the learning, but it obviously does.

[EricH]

I would have to say that FIRST is not totally about the engineer training. I'd have to agree with the "goal is to inspire students to want to learn" point of view.

It's not completely about inspiring students to be engineers. There are a number of things to do on the team that are not about the robots at all. They aren't technical. They aren't necessarily something that you can only learn in FIRST. I know of an FRC student who is not going for engineering. He's going for marketing, if I remember correctly--a field he'd have been introduces to by "selling" the robot to other teams. Others go into graphic arts, animation, web design, and similar fields.

It's not that they can't be engineers or that FIRST has missed its mark with them. On the contrary, FIRST hit a bullseye. They now want to learn more about their chosen field, to go in-depth, to pursue a career in whatever they choose. FIRST competitions simply provided an outlet for them to find that place they fit and a means for them to try it out and see if this is something they really want to do.

Cody, it's good to see you back making posts like this. We all need to think a bit about where we are and where, who, and what we want to be from time to time.

[,4lex S.]

I get where you are coming from. I think that as long as students have the opportunity to explore their own ambitions (within reason and practical constraints) they will be more likely to become inspired by the program though. I was lucky throughout my FIRST career to have a few good mentors who were able to teach without completely taking over the project, and I think my teamates and I are better for it. We know we've made mistakes, but the journey of building our robot has led us in general to pursue engineering on our own ambition, which I think is stronger than anything another person could have inspired in us. I am biased of course, because I am self-motivated. In general I think that engineering teams probably inspired more students, while student run teams can inspire students who are more ambitious. Perhaps an equilibrium could be called for???

Why is FIRST valuable to society? Because it inspires kids to be Engineers, not Basketball players.

[Devon27]

In my opinion, not only does each team teach its members different things, but each member, even on the same team will get something different out of FIRST depending on the roles they take and the amount of time and effort they put in (the more one puts in the more they will get out). Some students may not even touch a tool or the robot while others will spend countless hours in the shop prototyping and building. The students who aren't working specifically on the robot all of the time will however learn other things, they will learn business and marketing skills, they may learn different programs like 3D Studio Max, Final Cut Pro, Illustrator, or In Design (those are a few of the programs my team uses for marketing etc.). They may learn public speaking skills, how to write a speech, or how to write essays for awards and grants. Some students may take the role of team captain or president, those students are going to learn an immense amount about leadership. The members of any team are going to learn time management, there is no way not to when juggling a time consuming activity like FIRST with school. I guess my point is that although some aspects may be the same, the experience one person gets out of FIRST is different than the experience any other person will have. All that matters is that students are learning and getting something out of their participation on the team and quite honestly, I don't think anyone would spend so much time participating in something like FIRST if they weren't getting something out of it.