Jump to content

SeanK

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About SeanK

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Metacomet District, Mayflower Council
  • Interests
    Fishing, Camping & Canoeing

Recent Profile Visitors

93 profile views
  1. I wholeheartedly agree. The course, and many other trainings for that matter, out of necessity models the worst habits of an Adult Lead troop and sights the "Patrol Method" as its source. A different term should be used so as not to confuse new leaders who may not have seen the "Patrol Method" in action. If you are going to use the "Patrol Method" then use it, this would necessitate: Boy(participant) Lead: This would necessitate Guides being fluent in the Socratic Method and would be messy and inefficient, just as troops are Patrols would need to be self formed, not assigned in a manner that is more efficient for administration. The Patrol would need to be the fundamental, not ancillary, way information/learning is conveyed. i.e. The lectures would not count. That said, I understand why participants are grouped and assigned to administrative units for the convenience of instructors... But to call those units Patrols and invoke the "Patrol Method" is a poor chose of words.
  2. Warning this post is longer that I would like and could be violating my own guide lines #3&4 below. The following quote has been attributed to many individuals, with some slight changes, but is very relevant when directing a course: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”. Here are my suggestions for running any course and I wish they were followed at the Wood Badge Course I took. 1) Have a dedicated time keeper and empower them to enforce the clock. BSA syllabi are notorious for poor time management planning, someone at nationals will look at the number of topics that need to be covered and say they take x time to cover because that is what we have without thought to material needed to be delivered. For instance the 2017 printing gives 25 minutes to cover Gear Selection(12 Pages of Material) and Camp Fire Planning(3 Pages). Another example is IO have heard from nationals that the new YPT course with its ~23 minutes of mandatory video should be scheduled for an hour and a half, the face to face course is a good 2.5 hours. The materials need to be evaluated beforehand and the schedule modified accordingly. When you have a full schedule it is important to not allow one presenter to throw the next off as like dominos you will soon have a train wreck. We were chronically behind schedule and no one seemed to be giving the presenter the 10 minutes left, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, wrap it up, your done signals. It is also important to know that if the schedule has very little free form time, the earlier sections need to be pushed to stay under time for the inevitable hiccups. 2) Allow instructors the leeway to teach. We had multiple people, who I know understand the material, that as it was a Pilot course were reading Q cards point for point and not connecting with the audience. 3) Stay flexible and understand what might need to be cut to get back on schedule. If you need to run over be clear to the participants and cut breaks as a last resort , down/alone time is very important for keeping introverts engaged. 4) Attention spans drop 10-20 minutes into a lecture without interactive stimulation, after about an hour and a half they are completely shot. Small group break outs and physical activity need to be interspersed to keep the average person engaged. This point was covered on the third day of the course about three hours into straight lecture, the irony was not lost on me. 5) Expecting people who have never met before to perform as a cohesive group is stress full enough, artificially ramping up that stress in hopes of forming group cohesion can/will backfire on occasion, especially with participants trained to spot said “tricks”. A few things specific to the WBC I was in that are more structural/nationals responsibility to fix: a) Though I did not find the Ticket process unnecessarily stressful, it was definitely a theme. Some sort of pre-course packet should go out so people can come with ideas. b) Every person in that room was a “trained leader”, as there is more information that needs to be covered review items should be cut. Examples would be to cycle every one through the model campsite it took at least an hour and if the leader is taking scouts camping those items are covered in BALOO/IOLS but that is an item for Nationals. c) Personality classifications are flawed, ones that use black and white 4-5 groupings, though easy to proctor/administer, are fundamentally flawed and cause more problems than help. Un/Self Proctored Myers Briggs tests can limit peoples thinking, but at least it fundamentally understands that its groupings age a range and metricized those groups. We used something that had 4 groupings and allowed no flexibility, everyone is one and only one motivational type and if “A” then “B, C & D” are immaterial to them. If you have read this far I hope it makes sense and you found the comments constructive.
  3. I can only speak to the pilot 5 day course I took in the Fall of 2018. What I would specially do differently is not take the course... There was nothing in the course that was worth $300 much less missing the chance to be with my family for two weekends or using a vacation day at work. My biggest takeaways from the course are how not to run an event. In regards to the pitch: 1) Make it clear that it is designed to teach admission and leadership/management theory in a mostly lecture format. Outdoor skills are a thing of the past and only marginally involved. 2) Stop describing it as “the most fun you will ever have in scouting” and stressing it is a worthwhile course for every scout leader. My negative opinion of the course may be extreme but it is not unique. 3) The course seems to be a vestige of when secret groups were allowed in scouting, that should change people should have a clear understanding of outline and expectations before they sign up.
  4. Here are my two cents and keep in mind that my Wood Badge experience was not a good one. For informational purposes I took a Pilot of the new five day course, things could/should have changed. If you are not familiar business/management theory and its application to small group dynamics, it can be a useful course. If you are not familiar with the patrol method or the history and aims of Scouting it can be a useful course. If you are interested in checking a box on your Scout CV to work on things at the Council, Regional or National level it will be useful. That said, do not expect a mountain top experience and though a lot of people will tell you “it is the most fun they have ever had in scouting” I think it is more them wishing it was from a rear view mirror. Expect long hours of sitting and watching lectures with forced conformity and pre-set answers to problems being served up as creative thinking. Most people get scared off by the tickets, you should be able to do those in the normal course of your scouting life. For me the course did not live up to the high expectations that were set with the pitch. If the pitch was more true to life, I may have not been as miserable as I was. My background meant that most of the information presented was simplified to the point of boring me. I am not at a stage in my life were over a 10-12 hour day consisting of 6-7h Lecture, 1-2h Recitation, 1-2h possible activity and 3 meals is appealing.
  5. I am glad I came across this forum. I survived a Wood Badge course in the Fall and have been wondering why it is held in such high esteem. It is comforting to know that though I am in the minority I am not alone.
×