FAHA: Adult Coach on Drive Team

[Molten]

Originally Posted by dlavery

...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).

I went into the usfirst website and loaded the kickoff video. I have below the applicable portion.

Originally Posted by Dave Lavery at Kickoff

The real message I’ve got is for those teams that have chosen to not have mentors participating in your teams. I want to ask you to think about it again. If you have chosen to do this problem without mentors on your teams, technically yes you are probably going to be able to compete and play the game. It’s going to be tough, it’s going to be harder but you can probably do it. It’s certainly reasonable. But if you have chosen to not have mentors on your team and to do this by yourselves, you’re missing an opportunity to work side by side with some of the best engineers in the world. You’re missing an opportunity to learn from some of those creative and innovative designers that are out there. You’re missing an opportunity to be inspired by some of the best problem solvers in the world. Realistically, you’re missing the point. What we want you to do instead, to all those teams and all the teams that already get it and understand the role of the mentor we want you to instead to dare to try to do something different. Dare to try to learn about problem solving and doing things in a different way. Get outside of your comfort zone. Let the mentors show you something that you’re not used to doing. We want you to dare to be exposed to new ways to think we basically want to dare you to be inspired. That’s what we want you to take away from this program.

Ok, the two bold parts are the parts I want to reference. The first part suggests that teams choose to not have mentors participate. To this, I'd like to meet the team that doesn't allow their mentors to participate. From my experience, it seems like the teams that can get a mentor choose to use them. They might not allow to participate in the way that you mean, but they make use of them in some way. The teams I've been on avoid having mentors work on the parts, heading the design, or out on the field. Does this mean they aren't participating? I don't think so. I avoid doing work for the students. I help them figure out dimensions, I open their mind to new ideas, I am a resource of information, I am there for motivation if they need some confidence, I am a mentor(as dictionary.com describes it). I am not drafting up the bot for them, I am not going out on the field, I am not designing the robot, I am not building a part, I
am not a student. But honestly, that whole debate doesn't bother me too much.

The second bold part is where your real question comes in.

Originally Posted by dlavery

I would be quite interested in learning how I, or Dean, or Woodie, am all wrong and missing the point of FIRST.

In short: "How could the creators not know the point of their creation?"

I want to go with the definition of the word 'point', because that is probably where are confusion lies. According to dictionary.com, the word 'point' has 91 definitions. The definitions that are relevant are 23 through 25 which I've quoted below.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

23.the important or essential thing: the point of the matter.
24.the salient feature of a story, epigram, joke, etc.: to miss the point.
25.a particular aim, end, or purpose: He carried his point.

The creators would definitely know the point by definition 25, however that is not the definition that I was originally meaning. I am referring to definition 23. This leads to the question of what is "the important or essential thing" of FIRST. Winning is the most important thing in the competition for some, so that is the 'point' of FIRST for them. For others, the 'point' is inspiration. For me, the 'point' is learning. The whole 'point'(using definition 25) I am trying to make is that there is no singular 'point'(using definition 23) for something as big as FIRST.

This is the only case that I sincerely feel you are wrong. Anyone that suggests there is one-size-fits-all 'point' for FIRST, is wrong in my opinion. There are just too many people involved in the program for all of us to agree upon what is important.

I apologize for my harsh wording in my previous post(especially to Dean for the mistaken identity quote), I honestly am not accusing the creators of any ignorance. I feel that each of the creators are quite intelligent, I just think you need to realize that FIRST has numerous benefits outside of your original intention. It went from having a specific point to having numerous.

All I really ask is that you allow us to define the point ourselves rather then telling us what it is supposed to be.

[kramarczyk]

Originally Posted by Molten

All I really ask is that you allow us to define the point ourselves rather then telling us what it is supposed to be.

You get to do that with your team. A team is a separate entity from FIRST and is therefore entitled to it's own perspective. A team may choose to participate in other activities beyond FRC (VEX,BEST, Bot IQ, etc.) for a variety of benefits. Consequentially, a team may have a vision and mission that is somewhat different from any one of the individual competitions.

I cannot recall any example of FIRST telling the team what it is supposed to be, so why should we be telling FIRST what it is supposed to be. If learning is a part of your team mission or student coaches work for you, great. Teams can take a different look at the world than what is contained in FIRST's mission; it's allowed. Just don't assume that all of your reasons for participating should be pushed back to FIRST.

Stated differently...
FIRST != Team
Team != FIRST



.

[Jay Trzaskos]

According to usFIRST.org there are 1677 teams currently participating in FRC. That means that there are over 1677 different ways that a team can be run. That means that there are 1676 teams that don't have to be run in the same exact fashion as your team, and it's up to the individuals on those 1676 other teams to decide for themselves how their particular team will be run. Whether that be with student coaches or mentors in the pit, it is not our job as ta community as a whole to push our individual objectives and ideals upon our peers. Simply put, that is no way to foster the individualism, growth, and creativity that makes FRC so inspirational to alumni, those currently involved, and most importantly those who will join in the future.

As far as I'm concerned, wouldn't all of our time and energy be better spent worrying less about how other teams choose to run themselves, and more about how we can make our own teams better?

[epfaffli]

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.


Not one of these posts suggests removing adult mentors totally from the team. I'm sure that Dean was talking about the total team makeup and not this ascept of the team. Adult Mentors are needed to teach and direct the team. They should also train team leaders that can then use these skills to direct the drive team as student mentors.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Jay Trzaskos

As far as I'm concerned, wouldn't all of our time and energy be better spent worrying less about how other teams choose to run themselves, and more about how we can make our own teams better?

Well, if one is unsure on how to run their own team, they would look to this thread for pro and con arguments. Obviously there is no one better solution than another, but learning the merits and flaws of both is important.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Molten

All I really ask is that you allow us to define the point ourselves rather then telling us what it is supposed to be.

Originally Posted by kramarczyk

I cannot recall any example of FIRST telling the team what it is supposed to be...

Above in my previous post I have a lengthy quote from kickoff that was given by Dave Lavery. This speech pretty well is FIRST telling us what the team is supposed to be. Now, the only question is Dave Lavery=FIRST. He is certainly a major spokesperson for FIRST.

Originally Posted by epfaffli

Originally Posted by ICanCountTo19
I'm sure that Dean was talking about the total team makeup and not this ascept of the team.

Please read the thread in its entirety. We have already found that it was actually Dave Lavery who made this comment, not Dean. Also, the actual speech is quoted in a previous post I've made. Please read it before commenting on it.

[EricH]

Molten, what is FIRST's mission statement? Does it include a reference to mentors? Is not the mission statement to some extent a statement of FIRST's goals and methods?

FIRST's preferred method is to have mentors. They do not say what type of mentors, just that the program should have mentors. End of discussion, except that some teams don't read the mission statement and try to do the whole thing with one adult who pretty much is there so they can use their facility.

Anything beyond having mentor(s) that mentor (not shop-key-holders or accountants) is up to the team.

[Zflash]

So Mr. Lavery has pointed out that those teams that decide not to include Adult Mentors in the build process are missing the point. Never did he say that the teams that do not include mentors in build or do not have them on the field are not allowed to participate. A mentor is a great thing to have because they have already taken the tests of experience. And we all know that Mrs. Experience is a tough teacher because she gives the test first and the lesson last. So maybe a team is "missing" the point by competing a certain way, however since you are in FIRST your still coming out on top. By the way 1319 has a mentor coach, mainly because we strive to win. This is what the students want. Also winning will help when it comes to recruiting. When we won the Gailileo division in 2007 our enrollment jumped to over twice its size. Many of our now greatest students only joined because they wanted to be apart of a winning program. They are now interested in engineering fields and college in general. They were inspired and continued to be by our mentor lead team. To each his own I say that's why America is great.

[JaiM]

The 971 drive team chooses whoever they think is best suitable for the job, whether it be a student or an adult.

In 2004, 971 won SVR with an adult drive team coach.
This year, 2009, 971 won SVR (undefeated), Galileo, and Einstein with a student drive team coach.

I think it is unfair to say that an adult coach is inherently better than a student one. It all depends on an individual's actual abilities to be a coach.

[purduephotog]

I am of two minds (which isn't that surprising) about the issue.

In one extreme you have students blindly following the orders of a mentor/teacher.

On the other extreme you have freshmen with no experience being thrust into a new and rapidly changing environment with no preparation.

I have seen some mentors dominate to the point of exclusion- their teams revolve around his word and his word is the team. I have also witnessed our team with very little prep go out and struggle to stay focused because the students weren't able to multi task well enough to keep the situational awareness at a high enough priority.

I feel, however, that you've encouraged the students to put their trust in the mentors through the entire year and that to disrupt it at a critical juncture would be counter productive. It is, however, the mentor's responsibility to realize their roll and not dominate the students' work.

As always these are my opinions and subject to change in light of actual specifics.

[Akash Rastogi]

The only other thing I would like to add is that teams really shouldn't generalize and assume things about students or mentors being coaches. If you've seen an example of so-and-so, just remember that its one case of that situation in which a student or mentor falters or excels. I still think the best option is to have an old fashioned try out for both the coach and drivers.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Cody Carey

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.

OK, jumping back into the fray here, albeit some of the discussion may have become OBE (and as a side note, I will note how refreshing and mind-cleansing taking a break from the forums and all things robotics for two weeks can be). Cody, setting aside any value judgements on just exactly how bullheaded I may or may not be (and trust me, you have absolutely no idea...) I would ask that you go back and read my post again. I made one correction and a request. So as not to unfairly put words or blame into Dean's mouth, I corrected the earlier statement regarding the source of the quote (and I note that the statement was made by Michael Schreiber, not Jason as you indicated). I then requested that Jason thoroughly research his interpretation of my quote, so that he might understand exactly what I said and our discussion could progress from there. My statements during the kick-off presentations had to do with the specific issue of teams that choose to participate in FRC without the incorporation of adult mentors on their teams. I stand by those statements, I agree with them, and I believe that they fully support the vision and focus of FIRST. If we were going to discuss those issues, then I wanted to be sure we were starting from the same context.

The need for that is made obvious by the remainder of your post. I was referencing the role of the adult mentors on a team. Your post argues for the role of an adult coach on a team. While one person may fulfill both roles, they are not the same thing. Whether or not a team utilizes an adult or a student as a coach during the game is, to me, a minor issue. The rules issued by FIRST clearly permit the team to make their own choice in this regard. So I don't see it as even worth debating. The utilization of an adult mentor on the team, on the other hand, is one of the fundamental tenets of FIRST. If a team chooses to do without adult mentorship of the team, then I believe they are choosing to miss out on one of the truly significant benefits of FIRST, and the principal reason to participate in this program versus almost any of the many other robotics competition programs out there.

To put it simply: An adult coach impacts a team for two minutes. An adult mentor impacts a team for a lifetime.

-dave




.

[Bertman]

Since the rules as they exist allow for whatever a team would prefer to do, and since no two teams have the same situation (experience, facilities, etc) and since teams oscillate (members & mentors move, graduate, retire) from year to year, why try to apply a one size fits all solution to a situation that is ripe with diversity. Each team has the ability to formulate their drive team (or any other group or sub group) any way that works best for them.

[delsaner]

Our team wants members of the team (not adults) to participate in the drive team. I do not know why, but I am going to guess that the mentors of our want the students to be involved with what they create. Yea, the mentors give pointers as to the pros and cons of each match, but they want the student coach to be aware of the problems that could have fixed. I am guessing that our team coach wants our student drive team coach to be able to make good decisions, and execute them well with the help of the driver and operator.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Molten

Ok, the two bold parts are the parts I want to reference. The first part suggests that teams choose to not have mentors participate. To this, I'd like to meet the team that doesn't allow their mentors to participate. From my experience, it seems like the teams that can get a mentor choose to use them. They might not allow to participate in the way that you mean, but they make use of them in some way. The teams I've been on avoid having mentors work on the parts, heading the design, or out on the field. Does this mean they aren't participating? I don't think so. I avoid doing work for the students. I help them figure out dimensions, I open their mind to new ideas, I am a resource of information, I am there for motivation if they need some confidence, I am a mentor(as dictionary.com describes it). I am not drafting up the bot for them, I am not going out on the field, I am not designing the robot, I am not building a part, I am not a student. But honestly, that whole debate doesn't bother me too much.

I think this paragraph highlights the disconnect in our viewpoints. As indicated (several times now), my kickoff presentation comments have centered on those teams that knowingly and intentionally eschew the meaningful participation of adult mentors on the team. Your post indicates that you do not believe such teams exist. I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that they do.

My belief is based on information gathered from multiple data sets, including:
- review of the accumulated feedback provided to FIRST during the summer team forums (or whatever they are being called now) and similar sessions;
- review of 350-450 team-written self descriptions submitted each year as part of the NASA grant application process, in which teams describe their organization and mentoring structure;
- direct discussions with many teams over the years at the in-season and off-season competitions (current count is somewhere around 60 attended);
- review of the data gathered by the Brandeis University Study, and similar efforts, which examined the productivity, structure and throughput of FRC teams and their effectiveness at fulfilling the FIRST vision;
- and even the many, many posts that have accumulated here on CD from the many self-proclaimed "students only, they do everything, there are no adults involved" teams that decry contributions by any adults at all.

Based on the information gathered from these and other sources, many members of the senior ranks of FIRST have become concerned about the dilution of both the real and perceived role of mentors in the FIRST program. Teams that participate without meaningful adult mentoring exemplify the extreme case, and they exist as a large enough component of the total community to be considered representative of a real issue. The organization is focusing some real attention on how these divergent implementations affect the mission of FIRST.

If you truly believe that such teams do not actually exist, then please please provide me with some solid, concrete data to support that contention. Because if that is correct, then by extension we are wasting our time trying to address the issue of such teams and how they fit (or not) within FIRST. If that is indeed the case, then I think we will gladly welcome being corrected as we have many other things that we could be doing.

-dave


.