2012 Human Player Game Evaluation Results

<back to 2012 Kick Off - Human Player Game>

20120107-16033075.JPG
Debriefing after the first round (24 human player teams; 8 alliances; 4 matches) (Photo: Danny Levenson)


Evaluation Survey

Before the second round of the 2012 Human Player Game, everyone received paper evaluation forms to fill out to.
2012 Human Player Game Evaluation Survey

To view or print a pdf copy of the results:



Summary:

The results were very positive. We received paper evaluations from 57 students and mentors, representing 12 NC FRC teams. Of the 57, 12 were mentors and 44 were students (1 not answered). We had volunteers from over 10 teams help out the day of the event.

Overall, over half of the respondents were rookie+1's -- 45% of the students and 80% of the mentors. Been through the first year, ready for more understanding of the process for the second year.

Over half (53%) of the respondents had never played a Human Player Game before (75% of the mentors). Some of the respondents had played a modified version and a few had played a full all-out Human Player Game at either a workshop or strategy planning meeting before.

Comments about the best part of the Human Player Game included (note: all comments in the pdf of the results linked above):
  • Interaction with other teams outside of actual competition. Great way for the students to meet, share ideas, etc.
  • This is like a "Race cars, start your engines!" kind of experience. Very good use of time.
  • I learn kinesthetically so it was great for me. I got to talk to new people/mentors on the mentor team.
  • Those who did not have any clue got a chance to have their questions answered. Great cooperation between NC Robotics teams.
  • Physically playing the game without considering what a robot will look like. Do this again next year. It is an excellent use of the field mock up.
  • We figured what was a better characteristic to put on our robot.
  • The best part was working with other teams and exploring their suggestions.
  • Initiated a lot of conversations and thinking about game strategy (gave us a head start)

As far as actual ratings, the next 2 charts show the results for the aspects of using the Human Player Game as a tool for learning how the game worked. Three quarters or more of the respondents felt that it was a fun, positive approach to learn the game and a good use of the team's time directly following Kick Off.


HPG2012_Rating_game_as_tool_for_learning.JPG

Splitting out the results by mentors and students, the mentors saw even more value in the Human Player Game with 100% of the mentors Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing that the game provided an effective way to learn the game -- for themselves, for their team, and as a good use of time directly after Kick Off.

HPG2012_Rating_game_as_tool_for_learning_crosstab.JPG

The second goal of the Human Player Game was to help build community among NC FRC teams and a secondary result was that the game would provide internal team building benefits. The chart below shows the results for those questions. Again, half to three quarters of the respondents agreed that it helped their own team and that it was a good way to work together with other teams.
HPG2012_Rating_game_for_community_building.JPG

Splitting out the results by mentors and students, the mentors again were strongly in agreement that their team benefited from this experience, with 100% agreeing that their teams should participate in something similar next year and that working with other NC teams was an effective way to explore strategy.

HPG2012_Rating_game_for_community_building_crosstab.JPG


The last question on the survey was what could be done to improve the event for next year. Many of the suggestions were things that would be easier a second time through -- for example, getting alliances set up before the Kick Off (difficult this year with teams not knowing what they were signing up for and not knowing until Check In if they would participate or not), and a wish for better organization -- which experience will help along. The nature of the game is that a full organization can only be done in the time immediately after the Kick Off so there are challenges with this approach, no matter how well prepared teams are.

Comments for what could be improved included: (again, full comments are in the pdf of results listed above)


  • The PA system was bad. You couldn't hear anyone holding the microphone.
  • Slightly more time to go over the rules prior to starting the game.
  • At least one more half hour to go over rules with team would be beneficial.
  • Divide the teams up before the kick off (less work there). Thanks for doing this.
  • Sound system for improved communication.
  • Better organization and materials to draw plans with
  • Have an "example" match of the challenge to have a better understanding.

Overall, a great success! Thank you again to everyone who participated and volunteered and jumped into making this experiment a huge success!

Team PyroTech #3459
http://teampyrotech.org