|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
Quote:
Karthik, Tristan and Steve have all told stories of how we do things to back up what we have done so I am going to try and stay away from defending the way we do things. I think the results speak for themselves. I know we have a lot of room for improvement but in no way do I think we are doing something wrong. What I am going to do is tell you why I participate in FIRST and what my experiences have been so far. FIRST for me is a hobby. I enjoy it and I don't get paid, that to me is a hobby. When I was attending Queen's University I was a part of the Mini Baja team. This team was a group of engineering students that built an off-road vehicle that we raced against other schools. There were about 12 students on the team and we had no engineering help. We did have the shop workers who helped us when they could. We built all of the vehicle ourselves and did pretty well after a few years of learning lessons the hard way. I loved every moment I spent on that team. I loved the feeling of building and designing something. That experience is the only reason I have a job at GM today. After a year of working here the Engineering Manager asked me if I would like to help out with the FIRST robotics team we were starting (team 1114). I agreed to give it a try and immediately fell in love with it. With FIRST I am able to combine my loves of designing, fabrication, teamwork, competition and teaching all into one "hobby". Right from the beginning I was involved a lot in the design and build process. We had a few key students with the interest in working in these areas who I worked with along with a few other mentors. We did everything as a team. We all had our roles and we worked together to complete a common task. When the first season was over I was proud of the robot and the students. Our second season was much of the same. Great kids, great mentors, and a great robot. After that second season I decided I wanted to take more of a leadership role on the team. That is when I became the lead mentor for team 1114. We recruited more mentors in the off-season and recruited two more schools to join our group (now called NiagarFIRST.org). By doing this we were able to get more kids involved in FIRST. It was tough this year with three teams to keep them involved in the design. The brainstorming session at GM really got the kids excited and involved. After that day we knew what the robot would do. The rest of the season is a blur. I couldn't tell you which kids or which mentors did what because it was all a team effort. The only thing I do know is that we inspired kids. I know that for sure. I see them every day. They love it! I've been on a team with no mentors and I have been on a team with lots of mentors. I know both sides. Both sides are great! There is no need to make any drastic changes. Just keep in mind the goal of inspiring students and thrive to do it better. To make a long story short. I love designing robots and I love working with the students. Does my excitement get in the way of mentoring sometimes...I'm sure it does. But my excitement for engineering is what inspires the students, so I won't feel bad for loving FIRST so much. I hope this helps. Last edited by Derek Bessette : 05-04-2005 at 17:07. |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've seen what you are describing, and have wondered to myself the same things that you are talking about. I had the opportunity to speak with several higher-ups in FIRST and got to ask them what they thought of the different team structures. Basically, it boiled down to learning experiences. FIRST is about teaching students about engineering and sparking an excitement for science and technology. That is a pretty broad brush to paint details with, so a lot of what that means is left up to team interpretation.
I know from close experience that some students are only allowed to watch the process of building the robot - from design to fabrication. In these teams, the idea seems to be "watch it done right, and you'll learn how to be a good engineer." I haven't had a chance to speak with students on teams like this, so I don't know their side of the story, but it seems that they are content with this approach. They still get to drive the robot and have fun at the competitions, and I am sure it is fascinating to watch engineers in their natural environment. Kinda like the Discovery Channel in this sense. And I've learned a lot from the Discovery Channel. I was brought up on Team 365 where there is a good student-engineer relationship. Students and engineers work together to develop ideas with the engineers, everyone votes on the ideas, and the concept is done. The engineers then generate a CAD drawing of the team's ideas since most of the students don't have the knowledge of CAD to generate a model in the same time. Most of the fabrication is done by students unless the use of a few machines is limited due to DuPont's safety regulations. In that case, the mentors do that portion of the machining while the students watch. In the pits, student leaders from every sub-assembly build team lead maintenance of their part with the mentors keeping an eye on everything. The few times a lot of mentors are working on the robot are when the pit crew is out helping another team or there is too much grunt work to do in order to get the robot back together. In this system, the mentors act as a nice helping crutch - this allows the students to learn through experience while having engineers to guide them in the "right direction". I learned a lot here, and this experience has helped me in College to get into all of my internship positions. My freshman year in College, I was asked to help out a local high school team. They were working out of the basement of their school with the help of their physics teacher. They were very limited in resources, and their only other mentor was a friend of mine from college. The students were clearly enthusiastic and interested in science and technology. In this case, the professor and college mentors only provide a watchful safety eye and encouragement as they learn with the students. All of these examples promote FIRST's goal of inspiration in science and technology. The students are excited about technology and learning about how things work. To me, that is what FIRST is about. Building a robot is only the end goal of a long journey that is FIRST. The important part is the knowledge you gain from this experience and the ability to take your learnings into the world and pass it on. I don't think either one of these methods are more advantageous than the other, just different. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
Quote:
For the record, I assisted (in my spare time during a co-op term at GM St. Catharines) with the development of the pre-season prototype robot that would evolve into their competition design. (It did not include the tower and arm found on the competition robots.) The basic design was arrived at through brainstorming and discussion of various ideas, eventually resulting in a concept by first-year McMaster University student (and 1114 alumnus) Tyler Holtzman being chosen for development. (It was his idea to enclose the running gear in an aluminum box beam.) Though GM engineers Derek Bessette and Matthew Vint were quite involved (in their spare time) in the design and construction process of the prototype, so too were the shop teachers at Simcoe and Westlane (Greg Phillips and Ted Clark), and more to the point, so were a multitude of students at both schools, who fabricated parts and suggested modifications to the design. To say that "the students had no involvement with the development process" is patently false. To further claim that an engineer was solely responsible for the design only compounds the fallacy, and takes credit away from those who were involved. Last edited by Tristan Lall : 04-04-2005 at 14:22. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
My team doesn't have corporate sponsors. We have a budget just a bit larger than the allowable robot cost, but good tools. We meet at the US Coast Guard Academy, and we work in the engineering building's power lab.
We have one adult mentor, Captain Wilczynski, who oversees the project and makes sure we stick to schedule. His main role is to try and keep the Academy cadets from slacking off, taking on ideas more ambitious than they have time to do, and getting behind schedule. That and to teach us the last parts of the Mechanical Engineering curriculum here. We have another adult mentor, Master Chief Griswold, who works in the machine shop, keeps everything orderly, and teaches cadets how to use the tools and build things. If you go to him and ask how to build a particular part, he can always suggest something. He also knows exactly where to go to get supply of any basic parts such as gears, springs, aluminum, etc. This year we had three cadet mentors. Cadets are basically college students, with a bit of military weirdness thrown on top. We did most of the work, because it was hard to get all the high-schoolers together at the Coast Guard Academy. Also, there were safety rules about using the power tools, and the high-schoolers could not be in the lab without a cadet mentor. Among the high-schoolers' tough schedules, and the cadets never being permitted to miss a class or a military obligation, the high-schoolers could only work on the robot once or twice a week, for a few hours at a time. So what we did is, first, in the brainstorming part of the project, we got all the cadets and students together and brainstormed ideas for the robot. They built small models with LEGO Mindstorms, we threw three main ideas on the blackboard. We split up and discussed techniques in groups, and then the cadets built prototypes out of wood. We met again with the high-schoolers to discuss what we actually wanted to build. We tried to keep them in the decision-making process, but it just wasn't possible to involve them in the full build. One place where there was a large amount of high-schooler involvement was in the programming; there was only one cadet (myself) who knew how to program, and there were a few high-schoolers and one parent. So we met more often than the building team--which I was also a part of. So how did it work out? Probably about 10-70-20, adults-cadets-high-schoolers. Was it bad? I don't think so... The high-schoolers said we really made them feel like part of the team, and we built a robot that really was much like they'd discussed and planned. I think the biggest thing was attitude. Talking to the high-schoolers just like talking to the other cadets, and being calm but not fake. At the Long Island regional, I saw a lot of good teams, but one memory that stuck out was a team close to the stairs down to the pit. One guy on the team was yelling at everybody around him, "If you're not building on the robot, get out of the pit! Get out!" Really stressing out. Admittedly, the constant vaguely-pumping-up music and announcements on the speakers led to an environment where it was nearly impossible to communicate. I do wish that would change--the noise level felt constantly above safe levels. I spent most of my time there in ear plugs. The environment set up there was stressful and a little frustrating, when trying to get work done. I don't know why FIRST does that. I guess the music is supposed to add to the atmosphere, but the music is artificial, and the atmosphere generated by the (much less noisy) sound of tools, arguments, cheers, and robots is far more genuine. We were a bit stressed too, having to put last-minute fixes on the robot to make it work at all in competition. The high-schoolers were involved a lot in the pits. I was proud of how we did, and I think we treated everybody on the team well. I was pretty badly sick at the time, but even so, was getting a good vibe from the team. Do mentors go too far? I think they can... It's hard for students to get a good mechanical engineering experience when somebody else is doing all the engineering for them, or they have a professional lab building everything and solving the problems. You need to at least meet often enough to discuss problems with the students. If you're professional and you think there is a problem with their designs, you need to discuss that with them and show them why, instead of smiling, nodding, and rejecting the idea behind their backs. I think you have to talk like grownups--to the point, getting work done--but like grownups with respect. If students are doing nothing, you need to look for somewhere they can help. If students have skills, you should use them. But the students can't be there all the time, so you shouldn't be ashamed if you do more work. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
Our team, from its conception, has never had an engineer even come to one of our competitions. During build period, we have either built or started to build our idea, and our engineer, a Mr. Overfield, will then come in to tell us whether or not he feels that it will hold up under competition conditions. (We have proved him wrong several times, but he's a nice guy so we don't say anything). We take his council into account while finishing our bot, and thats the end of it mostly, as far as engineer input.
After attending several competitions, and seeing the engineer input many teams have, I realize that our team is missing out on some of what FIRST wants us to experience. We do not hear much professional advice, and therfore we have to build our robot entirely by ourselves. Sometimes this can be daunting, but in the end, and I do not intend to bash mentor run teams, I feel that a student built robot makes you learn more through trial and error. If you are constantly behind someone who knows all the answers, you tend not to learn as many answers yourself. I do not know what having a constantly working robot and team would be like, as I have never had one, but I feel that lacking all the right answers and solutions and skills that a mentor has tends to show the true sides of people, and brings the leader out in them. If FIRST is not about building robots, but is to inspire, then student run teams do a good job of that. They always inspire, through trials and problems, and sometimes they barely build a robot. Thats seems pretty close to the definition of FIRST's objective. Engineer teams out there, hold on to your engineers!!!! They teach a lot, I am sure of it. But students, make sure you learn, not just be inspired. The more you know now, the more you can know later. And just ask the mentors to move, I'm sure they will. It is your robot. ![]() |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
AHHH!!!
It's another touchy issue but I feel compelled to reply to it.When you have a group of students and a group of mentors trying to work together to create that perfect blend of work, there is a small tweaking to the math behind it. In this case 1 team's work divided into 2 groups of people cannot and will never ever equal to 1/2. Why? First of all, the human aspect of the entire thing comes into play. Who wouldn't want to have fun with all sorts of cool new gadgets, widgets, cogs and what not? It effects all ages. Second, sometimes one side is right, the other is wrong and vice versa. Finally, in order for that perfect blend to happen theoretically, someone would have to plan it out, and whoever has control over that plan, their side has the small majority. (55/45 or 50.1 to 49.9, you get the picture). Short: its impossible to get it perfect, but if you work hard, you'll get extremely close, and that's fine in my opinion. *edit* On the other hand, if you don't learn anything, not even a nibble, there's a problem. Last edited by JoeXIII'007 : 04-04-2005 at 16:16. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
I personally believe that a 50/50 split is the best way to go. That being said...
Last year Simbotics seemed to me to be totally engineer/mentor driven. I have had discussions with Karthik and even though I don't always agree with him, the preception was there. With the Niagara First trio I would have to say that there was a HUGE change from last year. Every time I ventured near their pit there were more students working on the robot than mentors. I give kudos to these teams for their student involvement this year. Was it perfect? Probably not but was your team perfect? After talking with the students on these teams, which you know I do, I could see the light in their eyes. These were their robots!!! Inspired? That would be a definate YES. We will continue to debate all sides of this story but please leave Niagara First out of the descussion because they "get it". |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
Quote:
Much as my development-engineer's ego wants to push its own ideas, I have to say that my team made me very proud this year by telling me and the other mentors to step aside, and let them design and build THEIR robot. They've done pretty well this year: regional Chairman's Award at St. Louis and semi-finalist at Buckeye. I'm for inspiration, and for teamwork between mentors and students, too. But my experience is that nothing gives mentors more satisfaction than seeing students pick up the challenge and go with their own ideas. [All that said, I won't stop pushing my own ideas next year.] |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
When do engineers go too far?
1. when winning a plastic trophy is more important that winning a student's admiration and respect 2. when they start yelling 3. when students are only allowed to touch the robot with their eyes 4. when they put the robot in the back of their car and drive off to live in the mountains of Alaska, never to be seen again, because "you people dont understand, thats why!" more here: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=36384 |
|
#10
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
Quote:
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
As I was reading through this thread, and I have read several others like it around Chief Delphi, it struck me that most of the people posting were debating how mentors can or cannot be too involved... and I personally have a totally different opinion on the whole thing. I think that on my team for one, the mentors and engineers let the students do TOO much.
I am on team 573, and although many of my teammates would disagree, I feel that our mentors often step back in situations where our robot could have turned out a lot better. Our teachers are proud that they are never in the pits and that the students operate the whole team by themselves. I'm not saying that because every student on the team knows how to maintain and fix the robot, it is a bad thing. What I am saying is that the mentors should be involved and working with the students, to engineer the robot. More often than not, actually. I love how our team has excellent student involvement and dedication. What I am concerned about it how our mentors feel that this is "the students" team and not a collaboration of engineers and students. I think that if we had a cooler robot that was designed better than students could do (virtually) alone, we would be more inspired and I am sure we would love our robot just as much... if not more. I am always amazed by the robots the big powerhouse teams have. I find myself wondering why we can't have a robot like that. I always come back to the fact that students could never have built those robots with even minimal engineer involvement. The teams who build those kind of awesome robots definitely do not step back and let the students take over. The engineers play a big role on those team. I feel more inspired by those robots. I get excited when I see them. I even cheer for them (at times) more enthusiastically than my own robot. Like in the elimination rounds. I think that when a robot can do that for someone who hasnt even taken part is building and designing it... you know they are pretty darn inspiring. I love my team and our robot, but I just wanted to say that not all students like to build the robot ALL by themselves. Also, that mentors CAN do "too little" as well as "too much" |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
For us I'd say 100% of the electrical, programming, and fundraising work is done by students. We have five engineers that help us with the fabrication of the robot in terms of teaching students how to work with the machines, and helping us get different parts. Overall at least 60% of the robot's fabrication is done by students. I am really happy with how we do things.
For teams who have their mentors and engineers do everything, all I have to say is that it means a lot more to EVERYONE for a student built robot to be a champion than otherwise. It also provides a LOT more inspiration and recognition of science and technology. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
I have hesitated to post in this thread, or any of the others like it, because I don't want to confuse my preferences with "what is right." That said, here are a couple of observations.
The purpose of FIRST is to inspire students to study science and technology. There are a LOT of ways to do that. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the way your team does it is "the right way" just because you like it. If students really aren't doing any of the real work on the robot, they are not being inspired as well as they could be. Sorry for the blanket statement, but it isn't just opinion. It is a well established fact in educational research. Students will realize that they are spectators rather than participants in FIRST. But don't make the mistake of assuming this is what is going on by observing a team for a couple of minutes at a competition. I am betting that a lot of the teams who seem like they have a completely engineer built robot don't really. I also bet there are a lot of teams where the students don't really have substantive involvement in the design and building process. This doesn't mean that a 100% student built robot is the best either. You don't learn as much doing everything on your own as you do when you learn from a professional. A mentor should be guiding the students to be able to do more. Mentors should be offering their professional guidance. Don't use the "you can't learn engineering in 6 weeks" as an excuse to let students not do/learn anything. You can learn a LOT in 6 weeks. (Particularly 6 weeks of FIRST with perhaps 20 hours or more in a week spent working on the robot.) Don't be afraid of mistakes. A mentor should point out problems with a design or idea. That is part of learning. But don't think that the mentors should do everything just because they will do it better. Mistakes are powerful learning tools. One of the most effective ways to inspire is to give students involvement from the start. This should be seen as a central duty of mentors. Involve the students. Challenge them. Ask them questions. Make them defend their answers. Students should learn through their involvement. When students learn more and start to do more work they will feel they have earned something. This is a key to inspiration. The post below is an example of the philosophy I would, as a teacher and team advisor, look for in a mentor: Quote:
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
I like the way my team works. We try and be as student driven as we can. We have engineers and teachers at our side when we have problems or questions. At our competitions, you will see the mentors standing back and letting the students do the work. Our 2 drivers, human player and coach are all students. A lot of teams have adult coaches, which I don't agree with. When they have questions or need a hand, they will ask a mentor. The engineers already know what their doing and are supposed to be there to guide and inspire the students, not do all the work while the students watch.
Our team has created 2 FIRST Robotics courses in our school for next year. These courses will allow our team to be even more student run then it already is. In one of the courses, students will handle finances and deal with administration. In short, I don't think that a team would be able to function without the help, support and guidance from our dedicated teachers and mentors. I do however think that students should essentially run the team and call on the mentors when they are needed. Last edited by omutton : 04-04-2005 at 17:07. |
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: When do mentors go too far?
I have little to actually add to this conversation, I'm sure I've extensively posted my thoughts elsewhere. I'd just like to note something I always notice when these threads pop up from time to time.
1. Someone comments that some team has a 100% engineer built robot. 2. People quickly point out that FIRST is about Inspiration, and there's no limits put on how that is achieved, so 100% engineer bots are perfectly alright. 3. The same person or other people often say that the original poster isn't being fair to the team they're talking about. Sometimes the original poster is said to be accusing the team of something, or somehow maligning their good name. This seems inconsistent to me. The original poster possibly has misconceptions about said team, and should be corrected. It's not something to get defensive and upset about if one is said to have an engineer-bot, right? Just something to think about. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| **FIRST EMAIL**/FIRST Announces New Class of Senior Mentors. | Billfred | FIRST E-Mail Blast Archive | 1 | 23-12-2004 13:32 |