amateur naturalists

[Rythos 10]

"LisaBob absolutely suggested that a leader who tries to learn a little more about a topic is in some some way doing a slapdash job with the topic and that is unsupportable as a general statement of fact that she presented it to be."

 

I think what was attempting to be communicated is anyone who learns only a LITTLE more about a topic and takes the stance of an expert is misrepresenting themselves. Even individuals who possess an extremely large base of knowledge gathered over time but present it in a manner which comes across as a self proclaimed expert can turn people off more than educating them. It is a danger that we all run into from time to time.

 

"If the scouts in your community have poor outdoor skills then say that. But to transfer the characteristics or failing of the few local leaders you know to all the leaders in the nation or even to most the leaders in the nation, based on such minimal evidence is a sloppy generalization at best"

 

I suppose that we could require all posts to be work cited and any numerical references should be exact out to the 10th decimal place with math shown, but I'm not sure it would have us all checking this message board on a monthly, let alone daily basis.

 

In many cases we can assume that generalizations are used because exact statistics are not readily available. I think if one reads the posts they can glean that no one is claiming all or most leaders in the nation are poorly educated regarding outdoor skills. The original poster seems to be stating that what she "sees in a lot of troops and packs, is that the parents decide that they'll just bone up on things by reading a page or two ahead in the scout handbook or downloading something off the web real quick, and off they go as the nascent "expert." "

 

These are her observations, and I don't think that they were intended to pass muster as a certified representative sampling of the entire BSA membership. This appears to be just as a statement from her that she has encountered several instances of this, and feels like it is more common than it should be. It appears that the OP feels individuals with limited knowledge should not attempt to appear to be the Expert, but rather acknowledge that they may not know everything, but would be happy to help the boys find the answers for any questions they (the leader) might not have the answers for.

 

No one person, no matter how experienced or well informed can know everything after all,

 

Ry

 

[Bob White 20]

Not at all Rythos, I am suggesting that if her problem with this issue is based on a specific incident then she should limit her observation or complaint it to that specific person and not transfer those same skills or lack of skills to most the leaders in the BSA nationwide.

[Lisabob 13]

Whatever Bob, as I said you are welcome to get all bent out of shape about this. Seems to me everyone here but you understands what I was saying though and can relate to it.

 

And for the record, is this based on one news story and one experience? HECK NO, though I rather wish it were. I have seen lots of examples of this, as apparently, have others on the board. I just don't intend to type them all up for your reading pleasure. Not that I'm convinced some posters would learn much from reading anyway since learning does require an open-ness to other experiences and perspectives.

 

The question is really, what to do? I like several of the things that folks have suggested here, from devoting a regular portion of RT to skill practice, to summer camp programs aimed at adult leaders, to the state programs pack described. I'm delighted to hear that some districts and units and individuals are actively combating ignorance. I would love to know what else people are doing out there to improve adult skill levels, so that more adults can do a better job of teaching kids the right information.

 

 

[Bob White 20]

What do do? I am glad to know that is your goal. That question can be asked and answered without needing to imply that most leaders do a poor job of teaching scouts.

 

The solution is to select quality leaders. Good leaders understand that learning is a continual process, and they know that there are resources available in the community around them so that they do not have to be the only source of instruction.

 

The BSA training explains this from the very beginning of adult leader training in the New Leader Essentials course during the resources section.

 

However adults need to be selected based on thier existing skills and on their ability aqnd willingness to self-improve.

 

Books, videos, supplementary training abound in and out of scouting for a person to call upon.

 

Saying that many or most leaders do not do this is an unsubstantiated generalization that insults the many adults who work very hard to do a good job teaching outdoor skills in the BSA.

 

 

[shortridge 184]

"Saying that many or most leaders do not do this is an unsubstantiated generalization that insults the many adults who work very hard to do a good job teaching outdoor skills in the BSA."

 

I don't mean to nitpick - but conversely, how can we make generalizations such as this without having met, interviewed and observed many adults in action? (And what's the numerical cutoff for "many" vs. "most"? 33 percent vs. 51 percent? ;-) )

 

I believe that it's a far better use of our time to discuss the issue at hand - which several folks here report they see from their respective points of view - and not split hairs over the definition or use of a single word.

 

I know lots of people who work very hard, but nevertheless don't do a good job teaching outdoor skills. They simply lack the background and experience, and don't think learning applies to them - only to their Scouts.

 

I like the idea of adult-only training at summer camp. Most already offer SSD, Climb On and LNT training of some sort. It'd be really easy to put together a program that educates on other topics while not insulting people who don't think their skills NEED any improvement.

 

I'd also suggest you try to get your local OA lodge or chapter involved. There have got to be more than a few eco-enthusiasts there.(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[anarchist 10]

I would like to play>>>

 

Shame that we all want much the same for our boys and then seem to spend so much time acting or responding like self absorbed children...(myself included).

 

It tickles me that BW, it seems, lives a in a different world from many of us. He has a wealth of knowledge and figuratively speaking a sharp tongue (typing fingers?) But in most of our scouting lives we do not get to "choose" our troop leaders (thats the COR/IH paygrade)nor can we usually "force" these folks to get trained...some do some won't...but we do witness lots of "malpractice". Reading a book and learning are very different things...Taking a set of "training classes" also does not make on competent to teach -many of us never realy learn ;>)!

 

As calicopenn noted, saying "I don't know" may just be the hardest words (men at least) can try to say...life Example: In the Stae of Virginia Virginia Hunter safety classes (years and years ago) there was a section on plant identification...after some in the class "book learning", the old guy teaching the course took the class for a nature walk...I was accompanying my youngest boy through the class so he could leave me at home when he when grocery shopping (never ask them to do something I wouldn't -even though I had been through the class three times already) and the instructor was doing a "point and ask"

 

...He pointed to a lovely "shrub" on the edge of the woods (which happened to be Taxicodendron pubescens P. Mills. -virgina poison oak). My lucky son answered "Poison Oak" and we all were told "no, poison oak is a western plant! Thats poison Ivy"!" This happened twice...before my son gave up and answered poison Ivy to every three leaf plant the instructor pointed out. No biggie the plants are "cousins" and the outcome of touching them is usually the same.

 

The same man missed two different oaks calling a white oak a red oak and a post oak a black oak...(at least they were oaks!) I told my son to grin and bear it...

 

Compare that guy to one of the ASMs in our troop who has (he is learning though) absolutely NO outdoor skills...He never was a scout and had never camped until his son wanted to join scouting...He answers almost every "outdoorsy" question with ..."gee, I really don't know...but lets see if we can find out" and starts the "questioner" down the road to collecting samples and digging through our dog eared Peterson's identification field guide collection.

 

Ask about astronomy though and be prepared for the most detailed teaching session you've ever had! He is great! (This man even did a stint as our SM!)The point is (if I have to point it out), this man will answer questions for which he knows the answers but is secure enough to admit to not knowing knots or whatever, if he is unsure of a correct answer.

 

Sometimes book learning is just not enough...but it is a start and more of us should learn to say "I don't know-lets find out!" rather than "it is a paraleptophlebia", when it is in fact a leptophlebia or even a centroptilum.

 

And while Lisabob was speaking in wide generalizations, most of us recognise the universal truth in what she was trying to get across...heck, sad to say, but I had high school teachers who were only a chapter ahead of me in physics and trig classes some 40 years ago. And as with computers...it is a basic truth..."garbage in equals garbage out".

 

When a dad or mom or leader or teacher answers incorrectly, without any doubt, as if the words "given" were the "holy truth" most of our younger boys accept it as knowledge set in stone and later making a "correction" is much more difficult...unless the scout was practicing "in one ear...out the other" (a worrisome trend in todays scouting programs).

 

I am not saying we can not teach outside of our comfort zone but what I am trying to get to is; we need to be able to take a breath and say "well, I know thats a flowering dog wood (cornus florida) and that sorta looks like a chokecherry (prunus virginia), but lets take a few leaves maybe take a picture or two and check it out more!"

 

There should be no shame in not knowing everything...just in faking it and not trying to find the truth.

 

nuff said

anarchist

 

[Bob White 20]

Anarchist

You may not choose the scout leader but you choose the unit, and if you choose to leave your child with an untrained adult leader you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

As as the training, in this case we are not discussing leadership training but nature identification. If you have a leader that cannot look at pictures to tell a Pin Oak from a Sugar Maplem from a Shag Bark Hickory then you have bigger problems then teaching nature to scouts.

 

My concern with Lisa Bob's post is not that leaders should always try to good a good job and that using area resources is a great way for scouts to learn, Not only is that common knowledge but it is reinfoced through many aspects of the BSA programs.

 

It wass her broad brush painting of most scouters doing a poor job of teaching when she has very limited range of experiences to base it on that was so disturbing.

 

 

 

[BadenP 93]

I really don't understand how BW continually misreads and misinterpret posts and yet will argue to the death he was right. Anyhow I understand exactly where Lisa and anarchist are coming from, many parents aka volunteers come from the numerous IT industries, for example,and while they can erradicate a virus on your computer they are at a loss in the woods and since many adults do not like to admit they are wrong they give out misinformation with authority instead, (sound like anyone we know, lol, resulting in the kids getting it wrong. Even with a book in hand they can misread or misinterpret the material because it's not their field of expertise, hmmm let me think of an example of this we can all relate to.

 

"Garbage in - garbage out" results in the kids learning the wrong thing and they are the ones who suffer, not the adult leaders.

[Bob White 20]

Many volunteers also come the medical industry, many from the military, many from the field of education, many are engineers, many are members of management, many are laborers, many are from the legal profession, many are from law enforcement, many are fire fighters, many are from mass communications services, many are from advertising agencies, many are from the retail industry, many are from State and Federal conservation services.

 

None of which precludes any of them from having the knowledge to teach nature effectively. You cannot possible tell all the things a person is knowledgable in simply by knowing what their profession is.

 

To say that if they are from the IT professions that they would be "lost in the woods" is another unprovable and absurd generalization. It lacks any basis in logic. It is as sloppy a premise as was the original comment regrading "many (most) scouters are really not well equipped to identify trees and animal signs" it is unmeasurable and offensive.

 

 

[BadenP 93]

Bobby the only absurd, unmeasurable, and offensive generalizations are your posts in this forum. The IT person was just a hypothetical case, the reality is you can not prove your premise with any references so you resort to insults and innuendos, give it a rest we have heard them all from you. As usual you blow things way out of proportion, when in fact what Lisa said originally has a lot of truth, like it or not Bobby.(This message has been edited by BadenP)