The recent new materials rules thread opened a discussion about how much mentor involvement should or should not be in FTC, a horse that has been severely beaten to death with FRC.
In this thread try to avoid using phrases like “FTC is” or “FTC is not”, as this is clearly oppinion based thread, and the organization of a single team is not one-size-fits-all.
I’ll ask the mods to move the posts from the previous thread over to this one… fair warning, I violated the above rule in a previous post.
OK I’m ready.
I see FTC teams as falling into one of two categories, which call for different levels of mentor involvement. Both these styles of teams will likely continue to exist in FTC for a long time.
Many FTC teams are created with no connection to an FRC team. For students on these teams, FTC is likely the highest level of robotics that they will compete in, because for whatever reason (time, space, resources, money, mentors, etc.), FRC isn’t feasible for them. For these teams, I see increased mentor involvement as a good thing. There’s no reason to deny these students the experience of working with and learning from professionals, just because their robots are smaller. These are the types of teams more likely to take FTC seriously, and just like in FRC, mentor involvement results in a less frustrating, more rewarding experience.
Other FTC teams are used as “Feeders” for FRC programs, often limited to underclassmen. For these teams, although the mentor dynamic can be just as valuable, other factors mean that an FLL-style approach can be more effective. First, since the team has a close bond to an FRC team, older students on the team are more likely to be in a position to serve as effective mentors, both due to technical knowledge from FRC, and from the FRC time commitment, which likely prevents “mentoring” from turning into “taking over the team.” Since the FTC program is seen more as a stepping stone, the argument that mentors are needed to ensure success is less valid. Additionally, experience in a challenging program with relatively sparse mentorship can be beneficial for students coming into a more mentor-driven FRC program. FTC will give these students plenty of basic technical knowledge, but it will also teach them “how much it is they don’t know.” And this is a critical thing for the FRC team; students who realize they have much to learn will generally be more accepting of teachings from mentors.
I argue strongly for it being more like FLL. Partly, that is because our teams grew out of FLL teams, and partly because the kids get more out of doing the work themselves. If there are too many kids on the team, the extra kids are idle. If you have 50-70 kids on a team, how many of them will ever touch the robot? On the other hand, with the new requirement to have a fully equipped machine shop, all those extra people can help raise funds, but I don’t see how that helps inspire them to be engineers.
Also, in FTC, one coach can manage three teams (although it is a challenge!) because the kids do all the work. With FRC-like teams, you need many more mentors and skills per team. The simplicity of the coaching job for FTC makes it easy to expand the number of teams, which is partly behind the growth rate. Changing the rules to be more like FRC means that you need metal shop skills versus engineering skills and you need more people to mentor a team.
I argue strongly for it being more like FLL. Partly, that is because our teams grew out of FLL teams, and partly because the kids get more out of doing the work themselves. If there are too many kids on the team, the extra kids are idle. If you have 50-70 kids on a team, how many of them will ever really touch the robot? On the other hand, with the new requirement for FTC teams to have a fully equipped machine shop like FRC, all those extra people can help raise funds, but I don’t see how that helps inspire them to be engineers.
Also, in FTC, one coach can manage three teams (although it is a challenge!) because the kids do all the work. With FRC-like teams, you need many more mentors and skills per team. The simplicity of the coaching job for FTC makes it easy to expand the number of teams, which is partly behind the growth rate. Changing the rules to be more like FRC means that you need metal shop skills versus engineering skills and you most likely need more people to mentor a team.
Why does FTC has to be “more like FRC or FLL”?
Without counting the pilot year, this will be FTC’s 8th year - the 5th year after major transition of building system from VEX to TETRIX. Shouldn’t FTC be what we, as individual teams, define it to be instead of trying to fit it into or change it tot be like a longer existing program?
FLL and FRC are both phenomenal programs to emulate. Yet I believe FTC is what we define it to be. Maybe it will end up in one extreme (FLL mostly student) to another (FRC a lot of mentor involvement), but FTC is what you make out of it.
FTC is for inspiring kids and students; as long as the team doesn’t forget that and keep pursuing that goal, however they approach competition matters just a bit less. Yes winning and losing matters, but just because you let students to all the work and let them learn and if they end up losing, are they really losers in the vision of the program (as for the other approach of managing a team - having lots of mentor support and involvement, the mentors are leading by example and introducing them to how the real world technology and methods are utilized so the argument can be used both ways)?
Plus, what if they “beat the odds” and win? What kind of inspiration and message would that send them?
As for the mentor involvement heavy teams, if the teams do win, doesn’t that motivate the students even more to learn from the mentors?
In Michigan, FTC is being set up for 7th and 8th grade. It is supposed to be a middle step between FLL and FRC. As such, I would prefer to see FTC keep more restrictions on fabricated parts and mentor involvement (like FLL).
For a middle school program, the FTC kit limitations are not all negative. It makes it a lot easier for young students without a lot of design and fabrication experience & resources to be competitive. They are free to experiment and change their technical approach without scrapping a lot of fabricated parts.
For FTC programs at the high school level in schools where FRC is not available, I think the new changes are great.
I think that the kids need to do the work in order to master the skills and learn. I prefer to ask questions about their design versus tell them how to build it. As long as they aren’t violating any rules or creating safety issues, I let them make the decisions (and the mistakes). Sometimes they are right and I am wrong, or vice versa.
Personally, I have always found that I learn more from my mistakes than my successes, and I certainly learn more from my mistakes than I learn from someone else’s successes!
This is interesting. Are the middle school teams not competing against the high school teams in Michigan? Are the students aware that they are participating in a high school dominated competition, and if they reach the Championship Event that will be their allies and competitors? What a cool opportunity.
We will be FTC rookies this season and there is a lot we don’t know. It is my understanding that there are only a few High School FTC teams in MI, and they will not be able to compete at the same events as the middle school teams - they must go out of state. At present, I think there are about 24 middle school FTC teams. I don’t know how many competitions there will be this year. The eventual goal is for every team to go to at least two, and then have a State Championship (like FRC in the MI district). I don’t know if that will all happen this year. The teams that qualify for CMP will play against HS teams at that point. We are looking forward to the season, and I think FTC will work well with middle schoolers. Our team (so far) all has FLL experience.
Personally I think it should be same with most teams (maybe not FLL) but its ok to have a wide amount of mentors but they shouldn’t do the work for example our team was a rookie team with amazing mentors who helped plan the robot come up with design but NEVER touched the robot all student done and same with electrical gives advice how to build or wire more efficenly but never said move aside and do this then this. So in conclusion should be all kid made no mentor work.
I respectfully disagree, I love that they are letting teams do so much fabracating! If you want it to be limited to just the kit of parts, switch to VEX. I believe the FTC kit of parts should be used as a frame and for the motors, controllers ect, and the rest is manufactured and engineered by the students. I think it teaches real engineering, not just making a robot out of a bunch of parts. Let the team members be creative and give them the resources so it can become a reality. In the last four years I’ve been in FTC, we build a robust drive train with the kit, then almost everything else the team members design and manufacture, it makes for some really cool robots.
As for it being a mid point between FLL and FRC, I don’t see it that way. FTC allowes more time to design, test, build, rebuild the robot. Since you can only have 10 members, it allowes everyone to work on the robot, learn programming ect. From my experience with FRC, it’s the mentors and 12th graders that build the robot or they have someone else manufacture all the custom parts because of the time they have. FRC is just bigger, but for most FRC teams I’ve seen, most of the kids only fundraise or scout.
As for your middle school team, I can see why it would be nice to have it limited to just the kit of parts. This is a high school competition but it’s great that middle schoolers do it. For all you FRC people, I’ve never been on an FRC team and I hope I didn’t offend anyone, this is just from my point of view. I don’t think FTC needs to be more like FLL or FRC, it needs to stay FTC.
Great thoughtful discussion.
We do not have a FRC program affiliated with our FTC program. I see the FRC programs being “pushed” by FIRST. They will provide seed money to get a program started. I personally feel FRC is too expensive and too heavily dependent on mentors. From what I’ve seen, FRC programs end up being Dad clubs where dads continue the program after their kids leave.
FTC should be about the kids doing the work themselves. With the start of last season, I see a transition to programs that allow for more organized ‘fabrication’ and outsourcing of components. I don’t necessarily see that as a good thing. Keeping the cost down and the barrier low so more kids can participate is key. Anything that helps to reach that goal is great in my book. Non Tetrix parts is great. Should be a fun challenge this year.
I don’t know…
After reading these posts, I’ve seen a few examples of how schools operate with FTC and FRC.
We operate in this fashion:
Since 1st semester is FTC season, students work the entire first semester a few times a week after school for 1-2 hours on FTC alone. They have veteran FRC/FTC members and one mentor who is my dad and has been with us since we introduced FIRST to the school. Aside for that, FTC is an experience we give to students to be able to experiment, get their feet wet in engineering and ready for FRC that lies ahead; it’s not limited to any grade, but rather it’s an engineering warm-up for what lies ahead.
I’m not saying mentoring is absent, I’m saying it exists when questions are asked, and mentors point a lot of things out, but overall the students are entirely in control of the design.
Then in FRC we get more mentor heavy, and follow suit like most FRC teams.
Last year we saved a ton of money by using a good bit of square tubing for the frame of our robot, square tubing is a lot cheaper then C channel. We get to use so much raw material that the cost should go down in certain places.
It is important to note that starting this season FTC is officially for 7th-12th grade students everywhere, instead of only 9th-12th as it has been in the past. While there hasn’t been an official press release, yet, new materials are starting to trickle out with that change. So in alignment with FIRST’s new “progression of programs” philosophy, FTC will serve as both an intermediate step between FLL and FRC and its traditional role as a less time and fund intensive alternative to FRC for high school students.
Most recent version ofFTC at a glance reflecting the change.
FTC is made for high school. Kids gotta grow up sometime, so take the training wheels off.
Here is a section from the FTC mentor guide that I like. In particular, I like the 4 step progression listed.
Transferring Ownership From Mentors to Students
During the mentoring processes, students and other team members learn and
assume more responsibility. Members of the team grow in knowledge and
understanding, and are able to teach and guide others on the team.
It is important to foster a safe learning environment for team members.
Students should be encouraged to be creative and experimental. Mentors
should emphasize that students should be comfortable with both the idea of
success and of failure as an important part of the process of discovery and
innovation.
In certain areas, the Mentor becomes a sustainer rather than a teacher. The
role shifts and allows the students and others to initiate and complete tasks.
The four simple steps below describe this transition. In this process, the
mentor gradually passes responsibility to the student. The Mentor begins the
process by demonstrating a task while a student observes. The process is
complete when the same student is able to perform the task independently
as the mentor observes.
- I Do, You Watch
- I Do, You Help
- You Do, I Help
- You Do. I Watch
When transferring ownership to the student:
• Be sure he or she is fully prepared and knows the subject well.
• Provide encouragement and make sure he or she is comfortable and wants the shift to a mentoring role.
• Inform the rest of the participants of what is happening regarding the shift. This will curb ideas that the new Mentor is assuming a role not assigned
This section doesn’t tell me that the robot should be 100% student designed, built, and programmed. I think FTC is better as a partnership between mentors and students. I agree with the idea of an intended progression in which mentors do less as students get more capable.