Learning experience vs. letting them fail

[Zahnada 11]

I was wondering, where does everyone here draw the line between a "learning experience" and "setting the boys up for failure"?

 

In a boy led troop, the boys should have the ability to make decisions and live with the consequences. Do the other adults in here need to restrain yourselves from interfering in such decisions?

 

An example:

 

What if a patrol decides to go on an extended outing without using a duty roster? They tell you, "Don't worry, we'll do the work as it needs to be done. Everyone will help." As experienced adults, we know that it hardly ever works out that way. Do you veto the idea or do you let them experience if for themselves?

 

I bet everyone in this forum has dozens of examples of boy's ideas that almost made you choke. Any others? Where do you draw the line?

 

Naturally, safety first (ie. "We don't need ropes or helmets to climb" or "This gas will make the fire start quicker.")

[KoreaScouter 13]

I understand the concept of "controlled failure", and up to a point, I think it has its place as a teaching tool. That said, I think that people in general are more enthusiastic and motivated by positive versus negative experiences, and Scouts are no exception. For example, if I watch the SPL about to forget to go to a leader's meeting at camp, I'll give him a gentle reminder versus let him miss the meeting and affect the Troop as a whole. Also, if by eavesdropping on patrol meetings at a Troop meeting, I see that they're planning foil meals but haven't put foil on their shopping list, I will steer the PL toward that oversight through directed questioning. Will they starve to death without the foil if you don't say anything? Of course not, but I don't think that's the point. It's incredibly easy to play and win "stump the dummy" or "gotcha" with them. But, consider the consequences -- they know that you knew they hadn't planned to get foil, and you didn't say anything before the fact. As a 12-year old PL, I'd resent that, even if I could borrow foil from someone else at camp or came up with some other workaround. We're trying to produce adults of high character; what behavior model do we want to imprint on them? If someone did that to me at work, he would definitely be off my Christmas card list!

 

In my experience, there will be enough unforeseen events, broken lanterns, missing tent stakes, road detours, etc., that we DIDN'T know about beforehand -- they will test the junior leaders' judgment, resourcefulness, and decision making. I don't understand why we would let something go FUBAR when we knew it would ahead of time, had the time and resources to prevent it, but didn't because we wanted them to "learn from it". Well, I think they'll learn from it all right, but we may not get what we bargained for.

 

I think proper planning (even if it requires adult intervention) and a good event resulting from it gives positive experiences and keeps 'em coming back. I also think it builds more positive relationships between the youths and adults. Shouldn't "...help other people at all times..." apply to us, too?

 

Of course, I think they need to know that their decisions (individually and collectively) have consequences. I have three Scouts right now who would have been First Class Scouts already if they had attended our one-mile orienteering hike in November. They all decided to do something else that day, and now that's the only requirement they have left to complete before an SM conference. See, there's plenty of opportunities for these lessons to sink in without us withholding our experience and judgment to create them.

 

KS

[ozemu 10]

Zahnada

 

I take it that you suggested that the roster is a good idea and why. That being so and they still chose to go ad hoc then you probably have a learning experience.

 

Manufacturing or ignoring mistakes is being harsh. In this case you have brought it to there attentiona nd it doesn't sound like anyone will get hurt - more that the leader will do a lot of work.

 

Depending on the age and experience of the Scouts (specially the PL) I will deliberately have little or no input on planning. If I get involved then they do not truly own the experience.

 

I think that the line between a learning experience and a 'set up' is dependant on the Scouts abilities and the consequences of not getting it right.

 

Given KS's 12 yo without foil; not a useful experience because they are still learning the basics of leadership and have little experience to go on. The consequence is in leadership and cooking solutions (which may be difficult if the foil was to be a challenge in the first place).

 

However a 14 yo may find the experience to be interesting as they should have the leadership thing reasonably in hand especially if they have cooked with foil before.

 

The consequences are different in each case. As with Risk Management - does the learning gained require the experience or is there another way that gets the learning done safer?

 

It's not so much as "are we following the policy?" but more - "how important is the lesson that they will get from this? Does it justify the potential negatives of the experince?"

[Eagledad 2777]

>>. I also think it builds more positive relationships between the youths and adults. Shouldn't "...help other people at all times..." apply to us, too?

[red feather 10]

Ditto with all of the above posts.

 

SNAFU happens. Let them learn, but monitor the boundaries.

 

yis

[Eagle74 10]

KoreaScouter's "controlled failure" is a solid concept, but only after Scouts have first been instructed, trained, or learned the "proper" methods.

 

Allowing Scouts to fail before learning how to do something is not a "failure" on their part - they never learned how in the first place. I have seen this happen more often than I like; under the guise of "character building" or "learning from the school of hard knocks." It's a design for failure. Is this going to happen from time to time anyway? Sure, but why design the program that way?

 

Then again, I'm not one to bang my head into a brick wall either. Once given the lessons and resources for success, let 'em have at it. This is where the boy-run part really helps. If, after knowing how to set up and having worked within a duty roster structure, the patrol decides they're going to wing it on the cooking/duty roster for the next campout, that's fine by me. They will soon learn that the rest of the program does not stop and wait for them due to their unorganized approach and they will see how much more efficient and effective the organized (usually, but not always, the more experienced) patrols are. May not even happen the first time around, but I will lay money down that they will learn by the second time.

 

As for the foil dinner example, I would definitely clue-in a less experienced patrol - first-year patrol, for example. But, if I gave a clue to the experienced patrol, it would be a much more subtle "I think you guys might want to review that supply list one more time . . ." For us, foil is something that should be in the patrol or troop supply box anyway, but they just might have to go begging from another patrol.

 

Totally agree that we don't need to set the boys up for failure since the best learning experiences will come from those things that everyone truly forgot about, unexpected problems, and other challenges along the way. This is where "adapt and overcome" will regularly come into play, and success or controlled failure becomes a more valuable life lesson.

[jbroganjr 10]

It is important that we adult leaders provide the structure or scaffold, so that when they fail, the fall not too far. That structure takes in the safety and health and should provide a basis upon which adult scouters measure where each scout is on that scaffold structure. new scouts at the bottom, experienced ones above.

all of the posts above are top notch.

 

For foil packs, what do we do about the adults who don't bring the right equipment (like a mess kit to eat out of?). I witnessed a couple of 2yr scouts fashion a "plate" out of a piece of tin foil for this forgetful scouter. I think this was a lesson learned by everyone.

[evmori 11]

Great posts!

 

We should never set Scouts up to fail. Every situation can & should be a learning experience.

 

Example - our feeder Pack just had their Blue & Gold last night. Our SPL has not been around due to a family situation so the ASPL has been in charge. At our last Troop meeting (we meet every Monday) the Troop was told that the next Monday was the Pack Blue & Gold & all were to attend. Our ASPL showed up with his dad (who is a Webelos leader) and told me "I just found out about this 15 minutes ago"! I responded "Well, you were here last week when the announcement was made."

 

Learning experience for both him & me. For the Scout - pay attention. For me - makes sure the information is given out in more than one form. Use all resources available like announcement, e-mail, flyers, etc.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

I would hope no adult leader would ever set a boy up to fail. In my thinking that would meaning giving a scout advice or direction that you know will result in failure.

 

I do however allow scouts to make their own decisions based on their training and resources. Unless there is a question of health or safety I will not interfere with that decision. Afterwards I would lead the scout in an evaluation of the activity and let him tell me what went wrong, ask him what could have avoided the problem ,and how he would adjust his decision making in the future.

 

Bob White

[mk9750 11]

My philosophy on this topic runs very close to Bob's. However, in that I am not a SM, my philospophy means very little. Our SM practices an approach similiar to KS's. He rarely allows a boy to actually fail, at least when the consequences will be felt by a number of boys. But I think he goes too far.If he sees something is not quite right, he will hint, then he will hint more strongly, then he will suggest, then he will suggest more strongly, until he gets to the point where he basically is telling them how to do something.

 

I think the problem for us is two fold. We certainly struggle allowing the boys to really be in control. But I think more importantly, our SM puts the cart before the horse with regard to training. Our cycle kind of goes: Elect leader, hand him a job description (in the form of a Patrol Leader's Handbook), let him have at it, send him to Troop JLT, let him have at it some more, send him to Council JLT, let him have at it some more, then criticize when he doesn't live up to expectations. It is during this cycle that the progressive interference from the SM takes place.

 

I think I may be leaving a bad, or maybe incomplete, impression of our SM. He is a great guy, and very dedicated. But he has a tough time allowing the guys to fail, and I think he puts too much emphisis on JLT training as the vast majority of training a boy gets. He has allowed the Troop JLT to be completely boy run. And I think this is good thing, except that it often can't be complete enough to really teach a boy his duties. And during that time before he gets Troop JLT, and then before he goes to Council JLT, a new leader is pretty much on his own.

 

Again, in an effort to be fair, we have asked specific ASMs to be responsible for specific Patrols, and they often don't have the training themselves, or just can't be there enough to be the mentor that a new leader needs. But again, I see that as the SM's responsiblity.

 

As an example, we have been getting a rash of complaints that meetings are getting boring, and one boy actually quit (he's since come back after all his best friends, all Scouts, talked him into coming back). Fortunatley, the SM recognizes that this is a real problem. Unfortunately, his reaction was to take over planning the next 3 or 4 meetings. I realize a few things are conspiring to make this seem like a reasonable course of action to him, like the SPL being on Council JLT staff, and therefore gone this week. But I tried to get him to understand that our job was to coach the junior leadership (in this case, the ASPL, who should fill in for the SPL) how to do a better meeting plan. I even feel that if this doesn't work, it's still better than stepping in and doing the job for them.

 

I have sugested, and we are kicking around, the possibilty of the adults doing a mock PLC and a mock meeting, hoping to show and inspire these guys to do better. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

 

Ultimately, I think a blend of Bob's philosophy and everyone else's, where a SM hints, and then suggests a better solution, but then steps back and let things play out (assuming no health, safety, or legal issues) may be the best. But the SM, and anyone else on whom the troop depends to teach guys how to be leaders, have to do their job, first.

 

Another long one. Gosh, words get to be like a drug for me. I've gotta learn to cut some.

 

Mark

[saltheart 10]

I've always been of the mind that there is no better place for a boy to fail than in Scouting. Why? Because there are so many around him ready to pick him up and get him back on the trail, while helping to reinforce the "lesson learned" idea. That's part of the beauty of Scouting.

 

Setting Scouts up to fail is a whole different, and undesirable path. One which we should not be using, even if the intentions are noble.

[Bob White 20]

Just food for thought. Eliminate the word fail from your scouting vocabulary. Failure is what happens when you choose to give up trying. In a well lead program, Scouts are trained to make their own own decisions. Sometimes thay make better decisions than other times. When they make a bad decision they evaluate, and make a plan for a different decision, that's called learning. At no time did the scout fail, they tried, they learned.

 

Boys pick up on negative words very easily. Leaders who use negative terms tend to lead in a different way than leaders who think in positive terms.

 

Just a personal observation.

 

Bob White

 

 

[jbroganjr 10]

Yoda say: there is no try, only do or do not!

[acco40 95]

I go along with the "if it does not jeopardize health and safety", let the boys learn from their mistakes. Too many adult leaders worry about what type of reflection the boys mistakes on them will have.

 

My biggest concern is answering the parents questions and comments when I continually hear things like they are only 12 (or 13, or 14, etc.) you can't expect them to plan their own meals, set-up their own tents, have the initiative to take a shower, ... My answer is usually yes I can!

 

When the boys know there is always going to be an adult there to "bail them out" or worse, override their decisions, they tend to get lazy or disinterested. The profound idea that actions (including lack of planning, preparation, etc.) has consequences seems to be lost on many in todays society. If they are not allowed to fail in the protected insular arena of Scouting, heaven forbid when they get their first taste of failure in the real world!(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Eagledad 2777]

>>When the boys know there is always going to be an adult there to "bail them out" or worse, override their decisions, they tend to get lazy or disinterested.