FAHA: Adult Coach on Drive Team

[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.

[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




.

[ShaunT]

Originally Posted by dlavery

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

-dave

But that's not true. There are really 2 situations from here: teams that practice for events and teams that do not. As I was on a team that swore by practice, I can only relate to that situation.

I am not literally talking about how, during practice, you spend more time with a drive coach. There are skills that you learn out on the field that are extraordinarily useful, and some of them can't be gotten any other way out of this organization. The most prominant is definately communication-in 2 minutes, you have to convey a lot of information between the coach and drive team. As a driver, you generally have about 5 seconds before whatever you were going to tell your coach no longer matters. You also have to be able to answer questions nearly instantly, and with a definate answer, not something that could be open to interpretation (no maybes, no probablys, and definately no "I think"s!)

While teams that do not practice will have a lessened effect, there will likely still be some of the lasting lessons learned, just through the course of matches.

Please realize that it should be up to the teams to choose what is best, and not up to FIRST.

[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



.

[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.

[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


.