I am a new engineering mentor (started in Sept) and would like some advice.
If the build team is totally getting off track what should be the mentors role? I’ve tried to influence them to get back on track with little success. I’ve worked in the high tech industry for 30 years and have seen many projects fail. I feel at this point the team is not going to get a robot built. Should I just let them fail and call it a learning experience? Is it my role to build the robot for them? I don’t think this is correct.
Is a mentor part of the team? I was told by an angry\stressed student that mentors are not part of the team. My view is that we are all on the same team but have different roles to support. I think I am there to help\encourage\voice concerns if the project is slipping?
Different teams have different approaches to the subject.
When I was a student, my high school’s team preached the interaction between mentors and students. We were all considered equal members of the team, and each contributed as much to the overall product as they could. I found this to be extremely rewarding, where other students and I were presented with enough work and responsibility to challenge ourselves, but never felt restricted in what the team could accomplish through our inexperience.
On the team I mentor now, things are very different and a similar process doesn’t work quite as well. There are a number of reasons why: number of mentors, team age, socionomic differences between the two cities, etc. What I’ve learned that if a student is adament on something, you can’t/shouldn’t stop them. Yes, they need help, but that help is going to be much more well recieved when they’re willing to listen. Some just have to learn the hard way.
However, if they claim that mentors are not part of the team, they’re absolutely wrong. Mentorship is one of the principles first is based around, what differs it from traditional STEM education. Engineers’ time is valuable, and sometimes students need to be gently reminded that engineers (espeically those with lots of industry experience) giving them free time and effort is a great learning opportunity, and that they should be treated with the respect that they deserve.
There are teams that pride themselves on being a 100% student built effort. I personally think this is the wrong way to go. For your scenario specifically, I would suggest trying to get them to slow down for a meeting. Stop working on the robot for an hour and analyze where the project currently is, where you’re trying to make it go, and plan a general schedule of how you’re going to get there with the remaining time, offering your experience as a guide to estimating how long the various portions left (design, manufacturing, assembly, etc.) may take. This activity might help the students realize that they might be overestimating exactly how much there is left to do or how long there is left to do it.
I’m a student, and this is my first year really actively participating in a Build Season, but I’ve learned a lot over the past 4 weeks about what it’s like to work as a team.
To answer the first question, I’m certain there are teams who fail and end up not showing up at the regionals. However, letting them fail, I believe, means making 6 weeks of hard work, effort, and money worthless. Instead, push them to work harder; provide them with tools and resources to build the robot, but do not design the robot for them (this just defeats the purpose of FIRST). For instance, you could have access to CNC machines, and have parts manufactured by that method, but rarely is the design for the parts done by the mentor alone.
As for the team member who believes that the mentor is not part of the team… Well, there was one quote from one of my mentors: “My job here is to ask questions”. I agree: we are a student-run team, and I do believe the program was built for the newer generations when they have to take the lead. However, if we were struggling, my bet is that the mentors will assist us in the build process, because nothing will be accomplished if we are lost and there’s no one other than the mentors to guide us.
Also keep in mind, you can take 30 lbs of replacement parts to the regional events, so I think this can be used to your advantage if something on the robot is not finished in time. Keep encouraging your students to keep going and not give up. If they’re stuck, take charge. Ask what’s going on, have a plan, do something to work around these issues.
Well, that’s kind of all I have to say. Once again, this is coming from a high school student, but I do hope this helps, and I wish your team a successful build season.
First off: please don’t let them fail. As difficult and non-achieveable as things may seem at the moment, as I always say: nothing is worth giving up over. FIRST is all about not quitting and pushing yourself to keep on going, no matter what the circumstances.
And you, sir, are most certainly part of the team. I don’t know what I’d do without the mentors on my team. They’re always helpful, there if I need a question answered, taught me how to use tools, and are extremely patient and kind. I’m sure the student who said such a (in my opinion) mean thing didn’t truly mean what he/she was saying. They were just living in the moment, that’s all. But yes, you’re definitely part of the team. (A team isn’t a team without someone to lead and guide them.)
You shouldn’t build the robot for them, because, like others have said, it pretty much defeats the purpose of FIRST. However! You can always give them a push and ask them what’s wrong or why they’re so off track. There’s nothing wrong with giving them guidance; that’s one of the things a mentor does.
All in all, please, don’t let it get to you. I’m sure your team is just stressed and upset. They want to compete just as much as you do, I’m sure, but they need a little push in the right direction. I know, you’ve tried it before. But in this case, you’re Thomas Edison, and they’re light bulbs. You’ve just got to keep trying and trying until you get results. If they want to throw away 6 weeks of time, money, etc. then that’s their choice and you can’t change that.
But don’t give up if there’s still something you can do. FIRST / FRC is a wonderful experience, and really, even though I’ve never met you or your team, I want you guys to go to your Regionals - and who knows? Maybe even Worlds! - and compete.
Suggest the right course once. If the students want to go down another path, then do your best to make it happen and make it work, even if it isn’t the most optimal. Over time, they will realize that you have a quality viewpoint and will start listening more and more.
It sounds like the students on the team have a viewpoint that they own the team and their mentors are there as only a reference. That’s fine - some teams run like that. Don’t force the issue and end up disliked and ostracized: that has no long-term upside.
In other words, as mentors we’re here to offer what the team members are willing to take. Mistakes are often the best teaching tools. Smile and simply enjoy the small successes.
First, thanks for taking the time to be a mentor. As an engineer, it’s a responsibility to mentor and train young engineers. The most important letter in FIRST is the I for inspire. Failure is not inspirational. There should be no doubt that you are a part of the team. You are the most important part of the team. FIRSTs goal is for you to transfer knowledge to the students. Things no classroom can teach. Not sit back passively and be a babysitter. That would miss the whole point of FIRST. I would suggest an “after hours” discussion with the other mentors and teachers then have one unified vision of what mentorship means to the team. Stick with it.
Depends upon why they are getting off track. One programming mentor believes in letting the kids fail. they learn a lot through their failure. However, he does show them the errors of their way in time to get a functioning robot.
I have been an RI, so I can tell the kids: That is not done properly; That will not pass inspection. Those things they have to fix. Just this week I surveyed the different areas: drive train, shooter, boulder handling, swiss army knife (various mechanisms for defeating defenses), etc. I then asked the Electrical Team what is their plan for wiring all the motors. They were not addressing how many motor controllers they needed (one for each motor), and that they had maxed out the number of high amp slots on the PDP.
We force the kids to prototype. If they can’t prove it works in prototype, we don’t let them build it.
If you can see the design will not work, try to help them visualize why it will not work. It is still their design, and the earlier they can fix the problem, the easier it is.
It is a big team, and I have no idea who is doing what (I am more on the programming side, so I do not see all the hardware). If they are not addressing issues - Every few meetings (we meet 4 times a week), I ask “how is X <climbing> coming along”. If no one is working on it, then it is a warning to them to put some people on it.
I see a Mentor role is to guide. We do not build the robot for them, but we do keep them from going down dead ends that may keep them from a robot that can compete.
hauki,
1st… THANKYOU for volunteering to help. Many of these students don’t appreciate the value of having a engineering mentor. Just ask the teams that don’t have any engineering mentors and still compete.
This is a perspective from a 3yr old team. It has taken our mentors and students 3 yrs to mature to the point where they have mutual respect for each other. The students really want to learn and do, but they typically struggle with visualizing concepts and deadlines. Adult volunteer’s tend to want to “ensure they don’t fail”, and when they see this, jump in a bit “too much”. Refrain from doing this and help them visualize the problem.
Also understand what you as a professional engineer can conceptually understand may take a student 10times as long. Be patient. What would take a mentor 10 minutes to do, take a student much longer until they have gained that experience. They will not gain the experience by watching. Make sure they are hands on “engaging”.
We help them realize challenges with their design, and prototyping is very helpful to do this. We have started using legos mindstorm legos this year for “mocks ups” instead of “drawing things”. (It was a huge success. in 20 minutes THEY found 3 design problems)
We also have a weekly “mentor only” meeting on monday for an hour. We bring up all sorts of things at this mentor meeting. But the reason for this is to bring the mentors together to manage risk to our team goals, have common mentor goals, and ensure the kids are still having fun.
Every team has different ways to manage their team and most of them work. We believe on WildStang that we are all team members, we all share in failures and success. As lovelj stated above, to let the team fail is not inspiring. A team meeting to discuss progress might show some interesting results. I have seen teams where one student is driving the team and everyone goes along with that student. It is easy for a student to get lost in the forest. However a team discussion might bring everything back into focus and actually get the entire team moving in the direction needed. We meet as a team every night to discuss what we accomplished yesterday, what we need to do today and what tomorrow is likely to bring.
Getting a driving base is a huge accomplishment and it shows the entire team that they can work together to get something to move. Small victories add up over the weeks of the build.
We try to let the kids lead, but sometimes that doesn’t work. You wouldn’t let the kids have power saw fights would you for instance. We have a lot of good seniors this year and only in a couple groups do the mentors have to keep everyone on track very often. In those groups however the mentors end up taking the role of a teacher showing the kids what they need to do, how to do it and enforcing the rules.
In other groups the seniors have been around long enough that they kinda run with it. 4 years ago I was holding their hands and doing more of the photoshop work than I wanted to. This year because they have the experience they just brought me finished brochures done in Photoshop. I was impressed to be honest.
I guess what I am saying is, let the kids have their way as long as they are working toward the goal, but it is your job (in my opinion anyway) to keep them grounded in reality and the timeline we have. Sounds like they are needing some guidance back on track.
I see a lot of people here talking about a student built vs mentor built robot. And it is understandable why many people have strong opinions on the matter on both sides. I for one believe that FIRST is a educational program made to inspire kids to explore STEM fields. Whether they find inspiration building a robot, or having someone else build it for them, does not matter, and will change on a team to team basis.
The feeling that i get from your post is that your team is primarily student ran. If that is the case, my two cents is it is important to step back, and let the students design and build the robot just as they always have been. Tell them your ideas for sure, but if they are adamant about going the other way, then the best thing you can do is to try and help them as best you can. Forcing the team to go in another direction will do nothing but cause unnecessary tension.
Something not mentioned yet in this thread is that because every team has a unique team culture, not every mentor will fit comfortably in every team. My former teams and my current team follow distinctly different season philosophies and that’s ok.
If you feel like you have something to offer and you are not being listened to, talk to team leadership about how you feel. The worst thing you can do is not tell other people on the team how you feel. If they are not receptive to your feeling, this offseason might be the time to look for a new team that more closely fits you build philosophies.
There are dozens of teams in your state that could use your help. Don’t feel pigeon-holed into one team.
Every team and every mentor has a different style of mentorship. Some teams have the mentors completely hands off and only there to assist and push forward a completely student driven approach. Some teams have the students hands off and the mentors build and “inspire”.
More often though, is it a hybrid of the two extremes where the students have a seat at the table with the mentors in determining direction, strategy and design. An entirely student driven approach often lacks direction. Having a mentor there to make comments and help gently guide the discussion is very helpful. An entirely mentor driven approach usually lacks creativity and passionate involvement from the students. Personally, I use a persuasive method when I see someone going far down what I think is the wrong path. I first give them a chance to explain what it is they think they are trying to achieve. Many times this is enough. They either convince me that I was mistaken or, the act of enunciating their idea is enough for them to hear what their mistake was. If that does not work some strategic questioning usually convinces those who still dont see what is going wrong. The question that everyone should be asking all the time is: “how does what I am doing right now contribute to on field and off field strategy?”
Sounds like a tough situation, although I’ve sort of been there in the earlier years. After a while at this, I’ve figured out that the reason that I keep coming back year after year is that I really enjoy the engineering process, and working with a team of students to design and build a robot in 6 weeks is about the most fun an engineer can have. And I let the students know that being part of the team, them letting me do stuff, is what keeps me coming back. I don’t have any interest in sitting around watching other people do stuff.
As suggested, you all need to sit down and talk about your roles on the team, and the status of your engineering project (the robot). There are two weeks left, and a few teams have already demonstrated that you can build a robot in three days…but it takes a cooperative effort by everyone on the team. Let them know that you want the team to succeed, and you’re concerned that if things keep going as they are, that won’t happen.
As many others have said, every team has a different culture. I have found that the best teams have a commonality, that their is a feeling of partnership in the process. My first question would be how many other mentors are there and what are their views of how things are going? If this is a school based team, talking to the teacher in charge (for some, the teachers are mentors, for some teams the teacher really acts more as a business manager and HR director but isn’t as involved in the robot building, for some the teacher is the person they have to have around to have a team in the school) is also a good idea. Ultimately if you want to be successful as a team the team has to develop a good working culture in which people know and are willing to accept their roles. Some of our mentors do more and teach less, some teach more and do less. We try to let the students learn how to do everything we do, but we all pitch in when things need to get done.
I would not put too much stock in what one stressed out student says. Everyone involved is part of the team. I have been doing FRC since 2000 and with team 1014 since we started in 2003. I also coach track and cross country. That experience comes in handy a lot more than you might think. Building a good track team and building a good robotics team share a lot of similarities.
If you want more specific suggestions feel free to send me a PM.
I will just chime in to say that sometimes students and mentors have different pictures to look at.
For some students all that matters is the years in which they are students whatever happens before or after doesn’t matter to them. For mentors, its about improving on past success and continually growing for many years to come. These pictures sometimes will not match or work well together.
I treat mentoring as though I’m a coach (I come from a sports background lol). As a coach I can lead students only as far as they are willing to be lead.
I will do everything I can to teach them to find their own flaws and I consistently ask them whether their approach is correct (regardless if its the “right” answer or the “wrong” answer) to stimulate their thought process and their ability to see their own mistakes.
BUT, there will ALWAYS be a point where tunnel vision takes over and they will choose a “wrong” direction. After that happens I no longer treat the option as “wrong” and will do everything in my power to make there choice succeed.
This way they see that I’m not trying to over power them but if their choice fails dispute our efforts to make it work, they will remember that there was other options available to them that maybe they should of listened to. And should they succeed, then everyone learned something that we previously thought wouldn’t work, and we grow from either result.
Example: Say your team wishes to do a Holonomic Drive this year. Most people here would say that was not the right choice of drive, and when you discuss this with the students have them lay out the pros and cons with some assistance from you. When they decide to still choose this drive after you do your best to show the flaws in the choice, Your job becomes trying to make their choice work. Maybe you have to double up on wheels to make sure things don’t break as easily. Something. Should it work, your almost guaranteed to have some fame from other teams, students will be thrilled etc etc. Should it fail, the students learn first hand why that process doesn’t work the way they thought.
Either way you helped them through the whole process and they will appreciate you.
One thing I haven’t seen addressed is the definition of success and failure. Depending on the team, these can have hugely different definitions. Simbotics wouldn’t produce a basic kitbot with no manipulators and call it a success. But rookie teams (including teams that, while not rookies, might as well be due to turnover or other issues) would.
As an LRI at competition, I define success as getting every team in the field with something that moves. It doesn’t have to be pretty, it doesn’t have to be able to manipulate game pieces overly well, but it needs to get out there and move. Just moving on the field is enough to let your team contribute to the alliance - herding balls, helping with defenses, playing defense against the other alliance… These are all things that can be done with a basic kitbot with no additions. And that robot can be put together in a day - I’ve seen it happen before practice day at competition, believe it or not.
So yes, you may be behind schedule. Yes, you may not get your manipulator done and yes, you may not play the game as effectively as you want. But if you have faith, work with your students, and show up to competition with something that at least drives you will make it to the field to compete… It may not be what you consider a success,. But it may help inspire the kids for next season, or inspire some changes in the team structure. Trust me, I’ve been there. My team did not have what we consider a successful season last year. Our robot did not perform well at all, not nearly up to our standards. But it has inspired the entire team for this year, and things are looking very different right now than they died at this same point last year.
I recommend sitting down with the students and asking them to come up with a priority list. What do they want to get done? What do they want their ROBOT to look like? What is the most important part of the robot that absolutely HAS to be finished?. Do that and you can ensure that your robot can at least move and do SOMETHING at cocompetition, even if it doesn’t do EVERYTHING the team wants it to do.
