Skills Training Exercise

[SR540Beaver 116]

Actually, there have been folks who have totally dismissed EDGE in the previous threads. Not just questioning why BSA chose to lock the single method into a requirement, but flat out say it doesn't work. I disagree. People wanted studies prvoing it. Can't give you any. For that matter, I can't give you studies proving any other BSA requirement. As invaluable as it may seem to some, I can say that my personal experience is that it does work.....depending on what you are using it for, and that is important to keep in mind. What else is important to keep in mind is the intended audience. Our audience isn't adults, professionals, technical analysts, etc. who may require more sophisticated forms of training. Our audience is 13 and 14 year old boys teaching 10 and 11 year old boys some basic outdoor skills. There is nothing wrong with Beavah's 8 step method from another thread. Except for the fact that the vast majority of 13 year olds are not going to have the training skills to assess the various learning needs of those they are training and customize their approach to the group. Heck, the requirement isn't even to teach a group. It is to teach another young scout a simple skill. EDGE works fine to do that. Do we really want to throw 6 different educational theories at a 13 year old Life Scout and tell him to pick one to use? EDGE is basic and simple and tailored to it's audience, both the trainer and the trainee. Why specify EDGE. Because it is simple and helps them remember. What do we tell kids about being lost in the woods? STOP. What do we tell kids about sprains? RICE. Do you do those things in every single instance? No, it depends on the circumstance. Does that invalidate them because 1 time out of 50 it doesn't apply? No. As I've stated multiple times, too many folks are over thinging this and complicating it. It is a simple acronym to help a 13 year old boy remember how to teach a simple skill to an 11 year old boy. For the listed requirements they have to teach, it will work just fine.

[Kudu 186]

Maybe the clever formula that what y'all are looking for is "DCSD":

 

Before the BSA's top national training committee of Wood Badge experts used EDGE to "explain" the "Patrol Method" to new Scoutmasters without "Explaining" what a Patrol is or what a Patrol Leader does, they used "Directing, Coaching, Supporting, and Delegating" to define the "Patrol Method" without ever mentioning the Patrol Method.

 

Note that the "Patrol Method" means adults "directing" random Scouts without even pretending to work through a Patrol Leader:

 

"Directing--that is, giving clear guidelines. Telling Scouts, 'Have the members of your patrol use buckets of water to put out the campfire, and then we can remove any traces that it was here,' is one example of directing."

 

This "modern evolution" of the Patrol Method (adults not even pretending to work through a Patrol Leader), is also our Chief Scout Executive's brand of "leadership" when he promotes Wood Badge:

 

"Our goal is not to teach someone to rub two sticks together and make a fire. But when you rub two sticks together and make a fire side by side with an adult of good character, you're going to learn about who you are and go on to lead men...You can teach a kid about character and leadership using aerospace and computers. The secret is to get them side by side with adults of character.

 

We run the risk of becoming irrelevant if we don't adapt to things that attract kids today... We recognize the evolving science of leadership. We've had CEOs on our board say they want to send their people to Wood Badge, our adult leader training program, because we use state-of-the-art techniques" (Chief Scout Executive Robert Mazzuca)

 

http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm

 

I hope that helps

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, SR540, let me take another crack at what packsaddle said.

 

If we're talkin' about an audience of 13-14 year olds and we're tryin' to get 'em to learn and be successful (as compared with just trying to present something to them), then let's think for a moment.

 

What makes for a good explanation (to the particular learner(s) you are working with)?

 

What makes for an effective demonstration (given da environment and equipment and learners)?

 

How does one do a good job coaching/mentoring?

 

When do you allow a learner to "solo" and under what kinds of conditions?

 

I reckon each of those things, to really understand and do a good job with 'em, requires quite a bit of time and training and practice. Certainly books have been written about each. So da notion that we can spend an hour explaining EDGE to a 13-14 year old and have them be successful with it is to my mind much less likely than havin' 'em figure out a goal and timeline, consider the learner, and come up with a plan.

 

And that's before we get into the fact that everyone seems to agree it's not E->D->G->E it's some random on-the-fly assortment of those four letters in different orders.

 

Only difference might be that goals and planning are part of so many other things we do in scouting, so unlike EDGE they might have seen that before.

 

As for da examples, I don't quite get 'em. RICE is used industry-wide. Yeh can pick up almost any BLS or First Aid or nursing text and find it in there. So it's a well-established protocol. That's not true of EDGE.

 

I've never taught STOP for what to do when lost (at least da "stay put" version. Well even da other one...). Much easier and more effective just to use an apprenticeship model and teach 'em what to really do when lost, rather than memorizing some almost useless acronym. Yeh can learn da acronym and still not know a thing about what to do when lost. Stop where? When? For how long? Think about what? Observe what? Plan how? Taking what into account? But if yeh teach with an apprenticeship model, yeh can blindfold a kid, walk him 2 miles into the forest and leave him and he'll be out at the cars in 30 minutes or less.

 

So I've always found it more successful both for me and for youth to figure this stuff out for real, rather than recite an acronym or algorithm. I reckon it might just be a different view of program, eh? I like to see da lads become proficient, not do-it-once-and-done. I expect older scouts to teach all of T-2-1, not just da "simplest skills." I figure a successful Life scout level of skill should be to be able to handle different learners, since he's dealin' with a range of kids in his patrol or as TG or Instructor.

 

But if you're just doin' a once-and-done signoff, then I suspect anything, from EDGE to BALROG will be "successful." All the learner needs is enough of an IQ to play da school quiz game. They've had years and years to learn how to do that with even da worst of teachers.

 

Beavah