I have always wondered how much mentor involvement is too much? I know mentors shouldn’t be the ones building the robot but where should the line be drawn?
I’m going to throw my 2 cents in here and suggest that we avoid having this discussion during build season. If you want the opinion of a lot of very well respected members of this forum on this issue check out this thread from last year:
You know, there have been lengthy discussions (some have turned into flame wars) here on chiefdelphi on the subject. The answer is that there isn’t a definitive answer. Everyone seems to have their own opinion and many will defend it fiercely.
Personally, I think that the best balance lies when mentors let the kids do most of the work but can still assure that the kids are capable of doing it. The role of mentors isn’t to do all the work and it’s not to sit back and not do anything, there has to be a balance where they are actually mentoring the kids.
Again, everyone has their own opinion and each team has to find the balance that works best for them. If the kids are getting inspired, then that’s the whole point of the program.
-Vivek
now, that isn’t true across the FIRST spectrum. For some teams, the students don’t do anything but drive the robot and observe the mentors building the robot. It all depends on the team’s interpretation of “inspiration.”
Whew… Please, before you go any further, search for threads about mentors and students. This has been extensively…um…“discussed”… or…shall we say…“debated”… over the years.
The answer is: How much do YOU say is too much? Some folks say it’s all right to have 100% mentors and 0% students. (Note: in this situation, I call the mentors “overgrown children”, but that’s beside the point.) Others say it’s just fine to have 0% mentors and 100% students. Others like a 50-50 balance, or some other area in the middle. Bottom line is, it’s your team’s call, and if another team wants to call you, say, “cheaters”, for having a high amount of adult work, you don’t have to listen.
For reference:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36962&highlight=mentor-built
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60094&highlight=mentor-built
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55997&highlight=mentor-built has a post with a list of such threads.
Congrats on your first post and heres the quick and easy answer. It depends on your team, if you want more mentor involvement, do so. If you don’t be student run. YOUR CHOICE. Have fun and I hope to see you guys at Champs.
In the last five years there have been dozens if not hundreds of threads regarding the role of mentors in youth robotics programs. Rather than starting an unbounded discussion of philosophy, I imagine that you would learn more by asking a specific question or airing a particular concern. Most of the time these threads are started by a student who feels their mentors are unfair, doing too much, doing the wrong thing, or in some other way not living up to the expectations of the student. I suggest that you either just say what’s bothering you if you do have a specific issue, or search for old threads on the philosophy of mentoring. I doubt there is anything new to be said on the subject.
I **am **deeply disappointed in the new FTC policy prohibiting mentor involvement in design and construction. From the FTC “Coach Manual”: The students on my team do all programming, research, problem-solving, and building. Adults can help them find the answers, but cannot give them the answers or make the decisions.
Perhaps if this policy is the right one for FLL and FTC it should be applied to FRC?
Overly dominant mentors are like porn - you know it when you see it.
I saw it this weekend, and it left a really bad taste in my mouth: A team I once respected and looked up to ruined it for me in less than 30 seconds: Ten-ish 40 year old mentors in a pit with not a student in sight. When asked where they were, I got the response “Pffft, I’m the one that has to fix everything.”
One of our mentors put it very well. There are 4 ways to look at it. I do, you watch. I do, you help. You do, I help. You do, I watch. From a students stand point, we hate it when mentors take over. However, you are supposed to be teaching us. Our team is mostly you do, I help, but since since only have at most 18 years of life experiences to base our facts of off, we need guidence sometimes, so do every once in awhile resort to I do, you help.
It probably just comes down to what you think is best. Talk to your students and see how they feel. Communication is key.
There is no right answer.
Though in my opinion, there are certainly wrong answers.
100% mentor/0% student is not a model that I would recommend. Nor 100% student/0% mentor (though circumstances sometimes dictate this).
Are you from 166, talking about team 20?
I don’t think I could have answered this question any better.
The sole exception to the, “it is up to your team” rule is when safety is concerned. If a mentor sees a student doing something unsafe it is their RESPONSIBILITY to stop them. This includes physical harm to the students or damage to materials or equipment. Students, if a mentor yells at you to stop I highly suggest you listen, remember, many mentors work with these tools daily and KNOW what is dangerous and what is not. We are also liable if you get hurt or equipment gets damaged.
And this is NOT just my $.02, this should be LAW for all teams.
No, I’m from 20 (many years ago), talking about a team I won’t name (but isn’t 20).
The first year I was on 20 (it was 250 then), the programming mentor did everything. During build season I tried desperately to learn programming, but to know avail. It turned out that he couldn’t make it to the regional, so I learned PBASIC in the car ride there. My view point is very much impacted by that.
I believe that things have changed since then, but I’m not involved with 20 enough to know anything about how it is run. I do know that my 2nd and third years went much better.{edit} In my second year, that particular mentor was gone, so I led programming and taught a few students. My third year, I moved to animation (so cool!) and only provided assistance to the programmers when they asked.
{EDIT}As a mentor, I err on the side of “A Mentor’s job is to prevent injury”, which probably infuriates my students and make them think I am lazy/incompetent/ugly. I’m over reacting from my experience, and it is also just too rewarding to watch them learn things on their own.
I’d go so far as to say that the interaction should go through all four of those stages.
I’ll be interested to know what the students on my team think. I think I’ll ask them this weekend.
I like and promote the ‘side-by-side, we’re in this together’ partnership between students and professional mentors.
When I am talking to teams and working with them, that is always a part of what I strive to impart. When I am helping rookie teams develop their organizational foundation, that is what I emphasize.
The respect that can grow within the mutual partnership will sustain the team and open the doors to opportunities for the students that they would have no awareness of otherwise. It also opens those doors to the community and to the FRC program. We see that continually in our Hall of Fame teams and in the teams that strive for that honor.
This idea is mentioned in a mentoring guide somewhere on the FIRST website… and I think it really reflects the ideal of what should be happening, both with students and mentors. At first, new students need to learn somehow. They will learn from more experienced students, and from their mentors. Eventually they will begin to develop an understanding of what is going on and will gain autonomy in what they can do. They will be able to teach other students, becoming their own kind of mentor. It’s a big cycle. Mentors can (and do) learn from students, too. FIRST is an enriching experience for everyone involved.
Let’s try not to turn this discussion into the can of worms we know it has been in the past… the exact ratio of student to mentor involvement that works depends on the nature of each team. There’s more than one solution that works.
That’s a great way of putting it.
I’ve heard a lot of people say over the years that it doesn’t matter what system you use as long as the students are inspired… I’ll argue that there’s really only one way to inspire students…
The way I see it, if the students aren’t doing anything they’re probably bored. If they are bored, they probably aren’t very inspired.
As a mentor I only do what is necessary to make sure all the students are actively involved.
Whenever an adult does something they are denying a student the opportunity to do that same thing. The same goes for seniors. Let the freshmen and sophomores make the parts. If they mess up. Have them remake them.
Learning is a process of trial and error. If your team is 100% successful, I think you are doing something wrong.
In my opinion, FIRST is about teaching leadership, ethics, and responsibility. Now this may not be the official mission of FIRST but I think it’s what it does best. It may teach kids how to build robots but that’s not a real skill that students are going to use down the line in their life. I personally wouldn’t mind a robot that was 100% mentor/adult made as long as it was led up and directed wholely by students. It really depends on team to team, if a team can teach skills reuseable by students (CAD, CAM, filming, etc.) then I would think it would be the obligation of the mentors to do their best to pass on these traits.
This is my second year in FIRST and my FIRST year as a “mentor” you can see my opinion as one of inexperience or as an opinion through a pair of fresh eyes.
As this topic has been covered many times as pointed out, i am closing this thread.