After the closure of the thread yesterday, I think that there is still a valid discussion to have. I know that the horse has been beaten to death, but we have to remember that with every year more rookies and more users join Chief Delphi. So here is the topic of discussion:
What role should mentors play on the team to best advance the values and goals of FIRST? What role do mentors play on your team and why?
Try and keep the discussion civil and productive, I would hate to see this locked too.
The mentors should play the role that the team (everyone on the team, including the mentors) wants them to play.
Of course it will vary considerably on different teams.
I’m lucky, our students don’t mind if I help design and build stuff. And that’s a big part of what keeps me coming back for more.
FIRST is not all about the students. It’s also not all about the mentors. On a successful FIRST team, both students and mentors work together, side by side, 50-50. The point of FIRST is to teach students about STEM, and spread STEM awareness. This is not possible without the work of mentors and engineers working with the students.
In the scenario where the mentors do more than the students, the students will not learn as much as they should. In the scenario where the students do more than the mentors, the students won’t learn any of the knowledge the mentors have to offer them.
In conclusion, mentors are part of FIRST to teach STEM. Without them, this whole operation would not be possible. Yet, they do need to be limited. Not too much, not too little.
Agreed. This is how our team works, and why we have a 1:1 ratio of students to mentors. It’s been working for 16-17 years.
I recognize that our team was referenced in the thread that was closed yesterday. No team wishes to be criticized, but sadly it happens from time to time. Lack of comprehension may cause conflict or an unwanted opinion. I do not wish to bash “nileshp87” but would instead offer him/her the chance to visit our facilities and see how we work.
Whatever the role is that leads to maximum inspiration. That’s the role that the mentors and the students both need to play. It’s also something that needs to be decided team by team and maybe even year by year within a team.
On a semi-related note, I asked the following question at a Kitbot build day for rookies (the mechanical and electrical groups were waiting on the programmers, for once):
What is the maximum amount of mentor involvement allowed in a robot build, by percentage?
After I heard the correct answer*, I explained to the rookies why that’s the right answer, and that they would see teams that they might think were mentor-built. Not only was that not a problem, but that it might be beneficial to go and hang out with those teams for a bit, and learn from them. I think part of the role for the teams with a higher percentages of mentors is to share those mentors with teams that need help, trying to improve the inspiration on those teams, if those teams need the help.
[spoiler]100%[/spoiler]
We have a coach but he rarely is present at the meetings. I am the student president on my team… and pretty much run everything from team organization, to setting meeting times, to teaching students, to buying things, to raising money, to keeping track of the budget, to managing outreach etc. It is a little overwhelming. I have teammates that help me take care of some of these things, but I still have to keep it all in check. I have learned a lot about management, but have had to figure most of it out by trial and error.
During this build season we have piqued interest of a few parents who have been a big help answering technical questions and building our practice field… but other than that we do everything ourselves. I think we are doing alright, but it has been a much slower process than it could have been.
Our ratio of mentors to students is about 1:10 and this is our best year in that regard! Last year it was just me and 2 dedicated teachers.
We leave all decisions up to the students but use persistent socratic queries when we are in significant disagreement. Over time, the mentors advice has saved the student’s efforts often enough that they respect our input. Just as often students come up with innovative ideas that never crossed our minds. The synergy is good - our mentors have awesome relationships with the students on this basis.
That being said, there are some areas that must be monitored for the year-to-year survival of the team. For example, I like to review all drawings that go to our wonderful sheet metal fab sponsors. We can’t be sending things out for fab that do not make sense, that are too expensive to build, that are not correct (as far as we know), that are not modeled, etc - really anything that is not totally respectful of the sponsorship. And the teachers must make sure monies are handled properly and school-related rules followed (our teachers do much more than this though!).
Ideally we’ll have a 1:1 mentor:student ratio some day, that would be nice. I know my wife would appreciate it!
I, for one, would not associate the actions of a single student with the awesomeness that is FIRST Team 175. Do not worry!
Having been the lead programmer on a student driven team, as a mentor now I try to be as hands off as possible.
I haven’t wrote a piece of code for FIRST robotics since 2008, and I don’t intend to anytime soon. My role on the team is now more of a consultant, and I want to keep in that way. As a mentor, I’ve been much more flexible to interface with underclassmen, those that aren’t the lead programmers. I’m also able to talk with the mechanical team, to make sure that they’re thinking about sensors and wiring considerations.
This weekend was the most I’ve been involved with the robot itself, I helped the lead programmers with a bit of control theory. In about an hour and a half, I helped them solve a problem they spent several days on. I feel this is my position as a mentor, to facilitate learning and to act as a guide when the students are having trouble.
I understand that this is a hot button issue, but only when you lose sight of FIRST’s goals. Sure, the competition is fun and the robots are great, and everyone wants to do well. But in the end, it doesn’t matter if your robot makes it onto Einstein or if you make a bar-stool on wheels, as long as students learned something.
I keep coming back to FIRST year after year, because the people inspire me.
Years ago in a thread like this one, I posted about a team at the St. Louis regional that inspired me – FRC 71, Team Hammond.
My view, having been both a student and a mentor, is that the mentor’s role is always changing; sometimes they teach by doing something and explaining the process to students, but many times they should be consultants.
My high school team had a policy that outlined a learning/teaching process: the mentors would first show how to do something, then they should have the student help, then they would assist the student, and finally, the student would work independently with the mentor as a supervisor and consultant. This process was very useful because everyone learned how to build, program, or whatever they wanted to do. Furthermore, veteran members had the independence to build and have pride in “this is our robot”. Our team never did the best at competition, and we learned through many, many mistakes, but we loved that we got to build whatever robot we wanted. Design was always done by students, with mentors only answering student questions and pointing out potential flaws.
The team that I help now is focused on a student-designed, student-built robot. We mentors only provide technical instruction and assistance. I think it’s really rewarding to see the students take the skills they are taught and build something that they can be proud of. There are many times that I could do something better or faster than the students because I have more experience, but then I realize that I would not have learned had I not been given the opportunity to work at my own learning pace when I was a student.
Just my two cents, but I don’t think there is a time for mentors to build the robot.
Here here… I agree and I believe this is the true spirit of mentorship anywhere, not just at FIRST.
The following passage has been quoted time and time again in threads such as this, but for those that haven’t read it, I think it is necessary posting.
Portions of Speech by Dean Kamen
1998 FIRST Competition Kickoff Workshop, January 10, 1998
The Center for New Hampshire, Manchester, NH
[imperfectly transcribed from a videotape]
copyright 1998 PNHS and GMPTI don’t know how many ways to try and continue to say it. . . What this organization is about is not education per se. I heard a lot of people, even last night, and I think they mean well, and I understand what you’re saying, there needs to be a balance, but I heard people saying “well sure that other team did great, but thats because the engineers did all the work. The kids didn’t build the robot.” I have to tell you, FIRST is not an educational institution. It’s okay if the kids build the whole robot, it’s okay if they don’t touch it. FIRST ought to be to education what the NFL or the World Series is to little league.
Just do the mental experiment in which there is no professional football, there is no little league. Do you think that little kids at the age of six, seven, and eight are going to get up and spend hours exercising, striving to get better and better at what would become a cardiovascular exercise running up and down a field? Imagine how many kids would spend those kinds of hours practicing basketball if there was no Michael Jordan.
The harsh reality is this country doesn’t have an NCAA of smarts or Olympic Committee of brains. We don’t have people as well known as Michael Jordan doing little things like inventing CAT scanners, curing diseases, putting a man on the moon. You and your companies are those people.
Emphasis mine. Because the goal of FIRST is to spread awareness of STEM and to inspire more students to pursue STEM education, the amount of mentor involvement on a team does not matter as long as those goals are being met.
I think it’s pretty clear what FIRST is about. It is For the Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.
At the end of the day, it should come to this: were the students successfully INSPIRED by their mentors to do the best they could to use science and technology to solve the problem of the FIRST Robotics Competition and win? That can’t happen if mentors do all the thinking while students do menial tasks like organize screws and drill holes.
Recognition comes from promoting science and technology, and allowing it to be recognized in school communities, and everywhere it can be heard. That comes from individual teams reaching out to show just how cool robots can really be, and to get people truly excited and passionate about robotics and engineering.
This comes up every year (and it will come up again and again) and to be honest it doesn’t matter what we say, People will see what they want to see and if they believe that teams that have mentors who build their robots (or even assist in any way shape or form) are the root of evil.
Perhaps the only way to deal with it is to let them stew in their own juices and take them off your pick list. Sometimes the best lessons come with a swift kick to the rear.
I have coached the same team since 2003. Some years, I reacted against seeing teams with limited student buy-in and erred toward the student-led model. Some years, I reacted against poor organization and outcome and erred toward mentor-led. I’ve been part of teams where student leaders did stupid things that cost team unity, safety, and a competitive robot. I’ve been part of teams where over-controlling adults did the same things. We currently have a mission statement that makes it clear what our expectations and goals are for both students and adults, and which usually helps cut off problems before they happen.
Currently I think that if, for example, I can provide the students with something valuable to do for the team by giving them a CAD/CAM part to work with, I’ll do it as long as it fits their vision and as long as at least one student is involved in the process enough to learn how it works, in hopes that they will be the ones who do the same thing next year.
It really is a difficult balancing act to reign in my own ideas and passions without allowing students to set themselves up for a poor season through lack of experience and foresight. I’ve certainly learned not to judge other teams as harshly as I did eight years ago. I hope I’m a better coach and mentor than I used to be, and that all the students I teach come away from the season feeling successful and proud of their work. I hope that students who were already passionate about an engineering future aren’t discouraged, and that students who never considered such an idea before their FIRST experience are coming away inspired. If I’m helping to facilitate these things, then maybe I’m fulfilling my role as an adult on the team.
no disrespect intented.
But That can’t be still correct today, could it?.. Look at what he did right after that…
FLL was started…
FLL, where one of the most fundamental Core Values is for students to do all of the work. Not some, not whatever you can do and I will help you with the rest - all of it. They are also judged upon it and judged lower during the competition if they do not or cannot represent their own work.
FLL is part of FIRST…
our own FRC mentoring guideline documents - the most recent one this year continues to show the values of having the student do the work - as much work as they are capable - with mentors standing by and encouraging…
Yeah sure, if a student doesn’t understand how to use a powersaw - don’t just randomly arm them with one. At the end of the day, what is quoted might be what is meant then, but I cannot understand how it could be true today. It defeats the purpose of having the students do…
Hanging out is terrific - maybe it will even keep them out of trouble. Doing what is described in the quote is like inviting a bunch of people to a buffet and not letting them eat… that’s just not right. :yikes:
I though long and hard about posting on another of these threads. Every team is different, and even one team changes from year to year. I think that one of the worst reactions to have when looking at how another team operates is to believe that you are better than they are because you do things differently. I strongly believe that the most important bond that gets formed in FRC is the bond between mentors and students. I understand and agree with Dean’s position about FIRST not being an educational institution. But as a teacher I also think I would not be doing my job if I allowed FRC not to be an educational experience for the students. A big part of that educational experience is collaboration between students and mentors. Collaboration means that we discuss, and listen to everyone’s input, and discuss, sometimes argue, and discuss (by now you should be seeing why we sometimes have trouble getting the robot done by ship/stop build date) some more. When problems arise we go back and forth for solutions.
This year’s ball gathering device started with a basic design I advanced. Then a student (and a new one at that) suggested a simple change which made the design much better. We worked on it some more and a mentor and student pointed out a couple simple flaws, which testing of the prototype confirmed. And they suggested a fix. Which worked. Then a parent and another student suggested another change. Which distinctly improved the robot. Then we found an annoying but not fatal problem, for a which a mentor found an excellent, easy to implement solution. Finally the student who made the first revision suggested a final solution that actually made the whole thing work better using one less motor. And now we have a very nice gathering device which is simple, easy to remove and inexpensive. That wouldn’t have happened if we had proscribed roles for mentors and students.
On our team we have had a strong tradition of the mentors teaching the kids how to do things. Mentors do a lot, and not just high level management. We cut things and drill things. But we try to show the kids how to do it, so they will learn. As a general goal, by the end of the season we want to be in a position where the kids can diagnose and fix any problems that occur with the robot. We also have a strong tradition of the mentors working really closely with the students. Occasionally we argue. We try to always be respectful with it. Arguments are not bad if everyone is being respectful and listening to the other side. More often than not, each party to the argument has a valid point to make. Sometimes that is a point the other people haven’t yet considered. More than once I have let kids pursue an idea I knew would not work, because I felt they needed to see it not work in order to understand why it wouldn’t work. Partly this is because I am a teacher and I think it is the right thing to do. Partly is because a few of those times I knew something wouldn’t work I was wrong, because I didn’t understand the situation well enough.
Our team does NOT have a magic formula. We have something that works pretty well for us. Find something that works for you.
That said, I would plead with all of the teachers out there running teams not to let the mentors design and build everything. You are missing the chance for your kids to learn a lot. (And frankly, you are fooling yourself if you think that kids who watch someone else build a robot are just as inspired as kids who participate in the building.) Teachers, I would also implore you not to have the students do everything. You are missing the chance for your kids to learn a lot. (And frankly, you are fooling yourself if you think that kids who work on their own building a robot are going to be as inspired as kids who work side by side with adults they look up to.)
First is not about the robots, it is about learning what is possible with robotics, and gaining a good working knowledge of engineering concepts that High school does not offer. This is not achieved as much as it could be without any mentor driven Ideas, High school students typically do not have the mental training to entirely develop competitive ideas without outside help. This means that most competitive robots are either drawing heavily on mentor and lead student experience, or they are drawing heavily on high performance teams posting their methods with the understanding that It will help others. I don’t think there will be a single robot that performs well were more than 75% of all of the thought process required were driven by that years student build team.
I totally disagree. Dean certainly doesn’t need me to defend his words, so I will just say I’ve heard him say similar things in the last couple of years, so I think he still believes what he said in 1998.
From my perspective, regarding the role of mentors on a team - this just isn’t for “kids” this is for "future STEM professionals. This is the best STEM curriculum in the world, wrapped up in the form of entertainment and competition. If they are not learning and not being inspired, then it certainly doesn’t meet the goals of FIRST. How that is done, however, is dependent on the “market” where this is practiced. There can be instances where telling students to do it all themselves could be totally uninspiring, leading to total frustration, and causing them to quit. Likewise, having them sit on the sidelines, and not get a chance to be involved can also sour them on the whole experience. What works for one team, in their community, may not work for another.
In my workplace, I manage a team of education professionals. They have all gone to college, some with advanced degrees, some with experience at other organizations - but when they join our company, they are assigned a Mentor for their first two years. At the beginning, they get to only observe the training events that our company provides, then a chance to teach more and more, finally they are allowed to “go solo.” Some need all 2 years to get up to speed, others, perhaps half that. The mentors are there to make sure they have the skills they need to be successful in our organization. The mentors in our company want the new employees to be successful as quickly as possible, so they can contribute to our overall success.
The same is true on our FRC team. We mentor them, so that hopefully they have the skills to be successful STEM professionals. Our FRC team is probably a 60/40 split between students and mentors. If a mentor is doing something, it with as much assistance as a student can give. If the student can do the job, the mentor is there to observe and advise. On our FTC teams, it is probably a 90/10 student to mentor split and FLL is then 100/0 split. But each level has its own goals and its own focus. FLL is not FRC for really short people, and FRC is not giant legos. The different levels of FIRST meet the kids where they are, with what they can do, and at what level of development they are in. They should be viewed as a part of progressive journey, where the goal is to grow the best STEM professionals we can.
On our team, the robot and the competition is a bonus - the learning is the key. How that works, is up to each team to decide, and that may change from year to year.