Wanted: Scholarly Articles on EDGE

[desertrat77 1144]

To put it another way:

 

There are a variety of methods to teach scouts how to put up a tent.

 

But when a particular method a) becomes "the law/the best thing since sliced bread/all the really smart people use this", b) has to be learned in detail before implementation and c) becomes more important than putting up the doggone tent, that's when I object.

 

Any time scouts are sitting on a log, bored, with their head in their hands, listening to a lecture on how to give a lecture, true scouting has been put on "pause."

[Kudu 186]

Yeah, what desertrat77 said

[Chrispy-chip 10]

I took the trainers edge course a while back, and one topic "effective teaching" I believe was made by bela banathy, although he calls it something else, i know that h has written articles in teaching journals although most deal with teaching a foriegn language with using a systems approach (he was an instructor at the defense language institute and I think a psychologist). You can try looking at him, although it isn't very edge specific.

[GKlose 24]

"The Experiential Education folks GKlose mentions wouldn't buy into EDGE, and as diverse as they are I reckon you'd be hard pressed to find anything like it in their materials."

 

Proof by assertion, Beav?

 

My point was, and I think that you missed, was that a Google search on "see one, do one, teach one" (which arguably is just a simpler view of EDGE) popped up the link on experiential education, of which there are many forms. So I don't get how you jump to the conclusion that experiential education folks (whomever they might be) wouldn't buy into this or that, or have nothing in their materials (whatever those might be). One of my other points, which I will agree was well-disguised, is that I was a co-op student many years ago -- cooperative education is a type of experiential education, and in fact, I would make the argument that it was very much like EDGE (seeing as how I spent three full years alternating equal amounts of time in the classroom with professional experience that directly related). Practical and effective, I would also argue.

 

So here's my assertion -- if the Experiential Education folks were ever introduced to the EDGE folks (the BSA "curriculum designers", whoever they might be), I think they would be kindred spirits and hit it off quite well, and the Experiential Education folks would most likely agree that EDGE is a form of EE, and would certainly add it to their materials.

 

Guy

[Kudu 186]

perdidochas writes:

 

Nice dodge Kudu, but you didn't answer the question other than with silly remarks.

 

A "dodge," perdidochas? You will certainly fit in well at Wood Badge.

 

Do you really not understand?

 

Beavah proposed doing away with "Explain" and "Demonstrate" altogether and to see what happens if a Troop Guide shows new Scouts how to set tents up without talking at all:

 

I always laugh when someone tries to explain how to set up a tent. Just do it. In fact, next campout challenge your TG to set up tents with new scouts without talking at all, and see if it makes it better or worse.

 

To satisfy qwazse's apparent desire to find a scientific basis for EDGE, I proposed comparing new Scouts who get "taught to" by someone like you, against new Scouts who simply help someone set up tents in complete silence:

 

test Beavah's example: Study new Scouts who have been forced to listen to an EDGE presentation on how to set up a tent, and test them against new Scouts who have spent the same amount of time using their hands to help someone set up tents in complete silence.

 

What part of a scientific comparison between your approach, and that of a "just do it" French mime camping enthusiast, don't you understand, perdidochas?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[Kudu 186]

Chrispy-chip wrote:

 

I took the trainers edge course a while back, and one topic "effective teaching" I believe was made by bela banathy, although he calls it something else, i know that he has written articles in teaching journals although most deal with teaching a foriegn language with using a systems approach (he was an instructor at the defense language institute and I think a psychologist).

 

Welcome to the forums, Chrispy-chip.

 

When we switched from William Hillcourt's highly popular Scoutcraft Patrol Method to Bela Banathy's White Stag method, two million Boy Scouts quit Scouting.

 

Maybe that is the kind of methods study that qwazse is looking for.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Could any of the nay sayers point me to the BSA literature on EDGE where it says that the boys have to do some formal analysis of the situation and determine that the planets are aligned correctly in order to use classroom lecturing with charts and graphs? Again, you guys are missing the forest for the trees by over thinking this. Edge is as simple as when one boy sits down on a log next to another boy and shows him how to tie a square knot. That is all it is and it is what has been going on in scouts for 100 years. Whe here has not seen one boy explain what a square knot is used for, demonstrate how to tie it, guide the other boy thru tying it and then sitting back and letting him do it on his own? Exactly how else do you teach your boys how to tie a knot? Use a mime? I'll bet you a pilot biscuit that my kid working one on one with a boy on how to tie a square knot will have him up and running in half the time as the mime. I'd bet you some gorp that half the kids will get frustrated trying to imitate the mime's actions and just walk away since he can't answer any questions.

 

People, it is a simple skill teaching technique that predates scouts by 10's of thousands of years.

[Beavah 205]

My point was, and I think that you missed, was that a Google search on "see one, do one, teach one" (which arguably is just a simpler view of EDGE) popped up the link on experiential education

 

Yah, sorry GKlose. My messages get too long already without addin' a whole 'nuther bit explainin' what I meant. My fault.

 

Yeh were quotin' Wikipedia, eh? That "source" can occasionally be useful pointin' yeh to a few things elsewhere that might be useful, but yeh can't read it without filters. There were what, somethin' like a dozen or more groups listed on that page? All of 'em with very different approaches.

 

And of course, See One Do One Teach One is not EDGE. It might be Demonstrate, Enable, Teach? DET?

 

I know some of the folks in da Experiential Education Association and one or two of da other groups there, I do work with local folks who are deeply involved in service learning, and I've done some work on da side for a couple other of the groups listed. I don't think they consider the med school trope of "See one do one teach one" to be experiential education. At best a distant and somewhat disreputable cousin. So I think Wikipedia failed yeh on that score.

 

I also don't think they'd buy into EDGE. I've seen their training materials and they don't resemble Trainer's EDGE at all. And I've read John Dewey and many of the progressive education classics. Very much part of da Scouting tradition, and comin' from the same soil. As useful for background on scoutin' as ol' Green Bar is on foreground. Dewey would be appalled by EDGE and its typical implementation, IMHO.

 

As an aside, I think da med school "See One Do One Teach One" trope is worse balderdash than EDGE, eh? Do yeh want a fellow doin' open heart surgery on you after only seeing one done? Teaching open heart surgery after only doing one? It's nonsense. Either that, or it's a great way of keepin' malpractice attorneys in clover.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[skeptic 990]

So, what we really have here is a "specific requirement" with a name, EDGE. Does it really mean they must do it exactly as described? From my perspective, NO. As usual, the people making these things up have a good intention; that is to "require" boys learn a viable teaching method and how to apply it. That being said, it seems that is what they should have written, or said. So, use whatever form of teaching that works, but make passing the skill on to the boys part of the advancement. Call it EDGE, or just teaching. Once they have the ability, then make sure they know what EDGE means in case someone gets "technical" with them in a review (though that might be retesting?). Just my take on this whole thing. It is really a non issue.

[qwazse 4342]

Skeptic, I would be with you up until ... Once they have the ability, then make sure they know what EDGE means in case someone gets "technical" with them in a review (though that might be retesting?).

 

If upon review a boy tells me "Sir, I forgot what it stands for, but I taught all the kids in my NSP how to secure the ropes on the trebuchet that launched a nalgene from our patrol site into SM Kudu's tent." Guess who's advancing to the next rank with no further questions?

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm setting up the kid for a life of failure. But I don't think Kudu's moving his tent a foot further away just because a kid can recite EDGE.

 

P.S. - Guy, thanks for the reference. Wiki or otherwise, it's more than what I had before.

[evmori 11]

Loved your tent post Kudu! Right on the money! And I have completed Wood Badge, The Old Course where you actually were outside and did Scout stuff outside.

[skeptic 990]

"If upon review a boy tells me "Sir, I forgot what it stands for, but I taught all the kids in my NSP how to secure the ropes on the trebuchet that launched a nalgene from our patrol site into SM Kudu's tent." Guess who's advancing to the next rank with no further questions?"

 

No problem here; I agree. Just a formality to encourage more advanced scouts to "be prepared" should the direct question be proffered. The real question should be; Tell us how you might teach a new skill to another scout or individual.

 

 

[sherminator505 10]

"Does it really mean they must do it exactly as described? From my perspective, NO."

 

Now there's the problem. We are often told that we may not add or subtract from the requirements. As the current requirements are written, the Scouts are required to use EDGE. So what National has done is take away any opportunity the Scout might have had in deciding on the appropriate method to teach a Scout skill and exercising *gasp* critical thinking. That's MY problem with EDGE.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[qwazse 4342]

Ya Skep and Sherm,

 

I don't have any problem with EDGE or any other method being in the book under a heading "How to teach a scout skill." Sort of like the chapter on different kinds of fires.

 

I would much rather the requirement be "Teach a friend how to tie a square knot. Tell a leader how you did taught him."

 

I would phrase the Life requirement similarly. Maybe including, "Explain why you chose the teaching method you used."

 

Should this happen naturally with positions of responsibility? Well, if you and your scout parents have bought into the boy-led stuff, yes. If your troop is Eagle milling or helicopter parenting, not so much. So, I think these requirements exist as much for parents as they do for the boys.

[AvidSM 11]

I agree with Skeptic - this is a non-issue.

 

You can argue all you want on what to name an apple, and in the end the scouts only like to eat oranges.

 

In my experience, there are two scouting programs: the one written in the books and the one the scouts and scouters actually do. Rarely do the two agree 100%. The people whose job it is to write the books have to put something there and have to keep making changes to justify their existence.

 

I also like the idea of using French mimes to teach as skill, because as we all know, a mime is a terrible thing to waste.

 

(Sorry, but I could not pass that one up)

 

EDGE is not a 100% match, but its not 0% either.