I think that the actual project
presentation is a minor part of the tournament, but the project work itself is
a major component. The work done on research, learning, and sharing what
they’ve learned should be highlighted in that 5 minute presentation plus
the judges’ question time after presentation.
In addition, everything on the mat is
related to climate change. The kids along the way of working on missions
will learn (or should learn) about those aspects of the challenge.
The scoring is clearly stated as 25%
project, 25% missions, 25% robot design, 25% teamwork. The annual
challenge is fully reflected in the project, but also is an undercurrent in the
missions. Teamwork encompasses everything the team does, not just the
robot. Under half is project-related, but certainly a heavy chunk of the
end scores, though not of the time spent on tournament day.
The robot is indeed the sparkle of
tournaments – it’s the part that everyone sees and the part you
spend most of the time tournament day on. But don’t forget how much
these kids are learning about the challenge each year and how it affects their
view of the world from that point on! I think the scoring pretty
accurately represents the emphasis. Although I do agree that it’s
difficult to show what the kids have done for the project at tournament other
than to the judges. I liked the idea of posting the team presentations on
you-tube. I plan to ask my team this year (and their parents) if
they’d like to do this. They put a lot of effort into their project
work this year. More than on the robot side.
From: First
Lego League Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George W. Dodd, SRA
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008
1:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VADCFLL-L] It's all
about the robot
It seems to me
that there is a disconnect between what FLL states and what happens at the
tournament. In reading the challenge this year the team was suppose to
identify a local change in climate and find possible solutions. The
materials provided from FLL suggest that the team’s project would
represent the largest part of their score and that the robot and its
performance were of secondary importance.
The tournament however
is clearly focused on the robot. The team scores appeared to based mostly
on robot design, programming, and table performance. The team’s
project seemed not to really count for much. Of the times the team met
with the judges; one was for the robot programming and design, three were the
robot challenge at the table, one for a team building exercise, and one two
minute segment was for the presentation of their project.
Maybe there should be
two types of tournaments where one is based on the project and the other on the
robot.
George Dodd
************************************************************************************************************************************************************** This
email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If the
recipient or reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
communication in error, please notify us immediately by sending a reply e-mail
message to the sender. Thank you.. This footnote confirms that this email
message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
Appraise-Virginia
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************
