China Teams at Vex Worlds

[meng]

@Gear_Geeks

The key is how to teach and impart knowledge for optimal results. For some optimal results means winning for others optimal results mean learning and innovating. This is not meant as a judgement - just an observation. A program would structure itself differently in each case. And letting kids research on their own and struggle is part of learning - but not conducive to winning.

@technik3k

In my opinion, well balanced teaching strategy calls to, first, teach students age appropriate theory, best building and engineering practices, that will later allow them to spend their creative time tinkering with more advanced topics, which will maximize the amount and quality of learning they get per unit of time.

These are 2 interesting contrasting approaches.
This is an issue that even the education research have not been able to settle on something conclusive, i.e. there is really no right or wrong approach.

So view my following comments as my personal opinion, not meant to kick anyone down or start any fire.

I always believe that with proper teaching/coaching, and the teams learning the right things and by doing the right things, there is no reason why a learning team can’t be a winning team as well.

I would like to use my senior teams as an example - they are doing well not just in robotics competitions (regardless of platforms), but also doing well in other tech-related, non-robotics competitions.
I would like to think that the main reason is because they got their foundations right, and what they have learnt are being translated into competition results.

But I must admit that I have an advantage over here - the kids are with me for about 6 years (from 12 / 13yo till 18yo). So I do have a long enough runway to ensure that the kids are learning and at the same time see them developed to someone that are versatile in making use of their knowledge and skills.

I believe in constructivism, but at the same time, personally I am more incline towards @technik3k approach.
I find it difficult to expect students to be creative in a vacuum. I mean, even in constructivism we talked about having sufficient scaffolding in order for the students to learn.
So yes, i do ensure my junior members (esp in their 1st 2 yrs in the club) are properly trained (by their seniors). And I do spend a fair bit of time tossing ideas around with the more senior members, and playing the devil advocate at times… or some times when they come to me with an idea of what they want to do, I will pull out a youtube video or a website and tell them - "Guess what?! There is something similar to what you mentioned… do take a look! ".
But this is not to say that I am not allowing them to fail or learn from mistakes… in fact, believe me… the struggle (for the juniors) is real and harsh… esp when they are being thrashed in HS category competitions. lol…

In summary, I don’t subscribe to the idea of just leaving them alone and they should be creative enough to figure something out.
And i totally agree with this statement…

@OscarMNOVA12

This is key.

Student-centered has different meanings not only on grade level, but also culturally.