Forgot your password?
OldGreyEagle, April 6, 2011 in Working with Kids
Apr 6 2011
Jun 5 2019
Apr 19 2011
Apr 15 2011
June 5, 2019
You are dead on right. An 11 year old is not the audience for the theory of learning. Rank and MB requirements should not say EDGE. Instead, say "Teach a scout" or "Show a new scout". As scouts ma
The problem with EDGE is that adults are taking their young scouts' time to discuss teaching. A recent study showed that more 11 year old scouts were hurt falling out of their chair asleep while liste
June 4, 2019
Holy Zombie Thread, Batman!
I love having a full size (square) necker. Anything else and I would rather go without.
I cant find the original parent thread, anyone want to summarize why E
"EDGE may work to teach a simple knot once. But its surprising to be asked to devote so many resources, at a nation-wide level, to a training method whose effectiveness cannot be substantiated."
I'll go along with whoever it was that said there's a lot of pooh-poohing about EDGE, not just in this thread but in the others as well. Most of the comments seem to lead into "we just want to do our own thang" or something like that.
So to ask again what OGE asked at the top, if a good method is not EDGE and if it's not a un-understandable model put forth by Beaveah the university professor, what are your thangs?
I don't understand your question FScouter.
The only thing that EDGE has ever done (that anyone can measure objectively) is remove the Patrol Leader and any description of a working Patrol from the Patrol Method presentation of Scoutmaster specific training.
Are you asking for a "thang" that can castrate the Patrol Method more effectively?
Yours at 300 feet,
The question is not about EDGE. It has been opined numersous times that EDGE is not the way to go, and several want to simply use their own methods. Other than the Beavah's long dissertation and others' general statements about how the method they use depends on the kid and the topic or this and that, we have not heard about any teaching methods actually used.
So OGE's question remains - "How do you teach youth to teach other youth?"
The method I suggested (above on 4/6):
Does not depend on the kid.
Does not depend on the topic.
Does not depend on the language spoken.
It has been used. Before I and my scouts used it, this rather uncouth civilization (a.k.a. THE WEST) used it to pull itself out of the Dark Ages.
Is it better than EDGE? I dunno. But then again, I'm not saying a kid should or shouldn't advance depending on his ability to recite my method.
Leadership Development surgically emasculated the Patrol Method when it ended Patrol Leader Training (a six month course on how to teach Patrol Leaders [youth] how to teach Scoutcraft to Patrol Members [youth] on Patrol Hikes).
Not "inclusive" enough?
The method I proposed on 4/8/2011 is similar to the one qwazse posted on 4/6/2011 in that neither are dependent on the individual or what needs to be taught.
The big problem (actually there are a couple) I have with EDGE is the BSA is more or less saying this is the only way to do it! All other methods are no longer endorsed. A fancy acronym makes it cool and neato but that doesn't mean we should throw all the other tried and true methods out the window!
Well, how do you teach adults too?
Two and a half years ago I volunteered as a Tiger Cub Den Leader fopr a pack that was struggling. They had failed to form a Tiger Cub Den the previous year, and another failure might well finish off the pack, which had just recently been revived anyway.
So I was Den Leader and wore a full uniform to den and pack meetings. I was the only uniformed adult leader.
A month or so ago I was invited to the Webelos crossover. The pack now has about sixty boys, and all the adult den leaders appeared to be in uniform.
I'd take credit for that, except that I did the same thing in another pack, which remains small and struggling and the two den leaders I have as CM aren't uniformed --- not yet anyway.
Nothing in EDGE as I read it would preclude doing any other method (other than sink or swim). The explanations for what Explaing, Demonstrate, Guide, and Enable are pretty vague and encompassing.
SP: Well, how do you teach adults too?
In this case, I'd give them EDGE for several reasons.Many adults are years removed from education and many of them have got on with their jobs/hobbies and have not been challenged to teach anyone a skill. My SM really appreciated learning EDGE because it gave him the confidence he needed to start instructing is PLs and counseling MBs.Many adults have learned to be critical of the written word. I use the manual for assembling new stuff about half the time. I know my father-in-law does less than that. A few of you guys testified that book-learning just isn't your thing.Most adults, even if they don't realize it, have specialized skills that aren't in your average handbook. Sometimes the guys who can teach us the most aren't all that expressive. Giving them a few steps to follow (be it EDGE, edDICT, or FERAL) and being receptive while they find their groove is all you need to unlock a font of knowledge and wisdom.
But even if you don't disclose the meaning of a mysterious acronym, if you ask a guy if you could come over to his shop one morning and have him show you how to do x, I bet just by being receptive, you can make him a "professor of x" by lunch time.
The acronym is just a "lucky penny". You rub it before the big game and toss it in your left pocket, and somehow it makes everything go that much better.
Well, perdidochas, the rank requirement states
While a Star Scout, use the EDGE method to teach a younger Scout the skills from ONE of the following seven choices, so that he is prepared to pass those requirements to his unit leader's satisfaction.
Second Class - 7a and 7c (first aid)
Second Class - 1a (outdoor skills)
Second Class - 3c, 3d, 3e, and 3f (cooking/camping)
First Class - 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d (first aid)
First Class - 1, 7a, and 7b (outdoor skills)
First Class - 4a, 4b, and 4d (cooking/camping)
Three requirements from one of the Eagle-required merit badges, as approved by your unit leader.
The EDGE method is the only method allowed.
Yah, surprised this thread is still goin' on.
Da last few posts convinced me that we're lookin' for something that doesn't exist.
Could someone please tell me the Method for first aid?
There is no method for first aid, no simple pithy little acronym yeh can tell people that will allow them to be successful treating any group of patients that come along.
Could someone please tell me the Method for engineering? For law? For auto mechanics? What's da four-step mnemonic for repairing all cars that yeh can teach a 14 year old in an hour and have 'em be successful?
These simple, pithy little models and methods don't exist, eh? They don't exist for first aid, for engineering, for law, for teaching, for anything!
If yeh want to learn first aid, yeh have to spend da time learning first aid. It takes learning lots of techniques and lots of mnemonics and how to evaluate a patient and use judgment to choose which technique to apply at any given time. But we expect scouts and scouters to really learn first aid, so we take the time to teach 'em for real.
No different for teaching, eh?
I do not take it that "Explain" precludes any method that transmits the information one hopes will be learned.
I do not understand "Demonstrate" to always be separate from, or distinct from, "Explain."
As with FSNP, things are not that simple.
Scouting in more recent years has reverted to its habit from the earliest days to oversimplify. ("All groups go through these stages.")
I recall that leadership training on teaching included in the last seven decades the notion that application should follow instruction and that the goal was some level of proficiency. Years ago, there was some mention of explaining why the information or skill to be taught was important to learn (often, the motivation was to beat the other patrols in competition).
Too bad there is insufficient time in IOLS to both teach Scoutcraft AND how to teach Scoutcraft.
Rick, you said: "As if it is humanly possible for anyone other than a Patrol Leader to teach Scoutcraft in any context other than a Patrol Hike."
First, I agree totally that it is best to allow Patrols to act independently. In no other way can the group come together to its greatest potential.
However, even in as narrow a context as Scouting, it is clearly humanly possible for Scoutcraft to be learned other than from a Patrol Leader and other than on an (adult-free) Patrol hike. Persons other than Patrol Leaders teach. Things are learned other than on hikes (or campouts). My Grandfather deliberately taught me how to sharpen a knife. I taught my first Patrol Leader at a Patrol meeting. I don't know how many I have taught since. Adults write books that teach the boys who read them. You have doubtless taught Scoutcraft to boys at (gasp!) indoor meetings, as BP specifically contemplated in his writings.
Even your prescription of "300 feet," allows for months of training of the Patrol Leaders in Scoutcraft and leadership skills (Bill's books are full of leadership skills, such as setting the example and planning.) Is "300" feet not a fighting slogan rather than an actual plan, just as EDGE is shorthand for something that simply must be more complex to work? Otherwise, Bill wasted a lot of paper, as did BP.
Generally, I find BSA's prescriptions less offensive than it's ever-lengthening list of proscriptions.
And Rick, I am not sure if you regard the military as an "adventure" program," but they are quite satisfied that leadership training produces greater success than simply putting a squad or section off on their own and hoping that "nature takes its course." Of course, they have downsides in mind that are much worse than burnt eggs.
Check out the beret:
(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)(This message has been edited by TAHAWK)
"There is no method for first aid, no simple pithy little acronym yeh can tell people that will allow them to be successful treating any group of patients that come along."
However, even in as narrow a context as Scouting, it is clearly humanly possible for Scoutcraft to be learned other than from a Patrol Leader and other than on an (adult-free) Patrol hike.
Likewise it is humanly possible for a high school quarterback to get the ball into the end zone by throwing it to helpful spectators on the sidelines. That game is still "football" in the same way that replacing Hillcourt's Patrol Leader Training with program-neutral "leadership" formulas is still "Scouting."
Even your prescription of "300 feet," allows for months of training of the Patrol Leaders in Scoutcraft and leadership skills
If you limit participation to gung-ho campers led by their natural leaders, then everything else is the enjoyment of outdoor personalities and practical problems.
I am not sure if you regard the military as an "adventure" program," but they are quite satisfied that leadership training produces greater success than simply putting a squad or section off on their own and hoping that "nature takes its course."
The difference is that the military appoints our natural leaders.
If Wood Badge ran the military we would recruit Hispanic pacifists, modernize basic training to address the needs of Cub Scout Leaders, replace war games with "program-neutral" EDGE, hold unit elections every six months, and expand diversity training to include Pashto so as to better communicate with our new masters.
Of course, they have downsides in mind that are much worse than burnt eggs.
My point exactly.
Leadership Development took away Patrol Leader Training (how to lead your Scouts into the woods without adult supervision): We replaced Adventure with Webelos III "controlled failure" so as to preclude any downsides worse than burnt eggs.
(This message has been edited by Kudu)
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Already have an account? Sign in here.