EDGE - why dictate it?

[sherminator505]

I am not against EDGE philosophically. I just have one question:

 

What is the value of dictating it as THE method of instruction in our Boy Scout requirements?

[John-in-KC]

Well,

 

What techniques of instruction do you want youth to learn?

[KC9DDI]

Are you asking whether the BSA should standardize on a single training/education model? Or whether EDGE should be the particular one they choose to use?

 

I think it makes sense for the BSA to standardize on a single training delivery model, mainly to contribute to creating a consistent experience from unit to unit and training program to training program. I think it also helps in the development of train-the-trainer type course, so that all of the BSA's resources can go into creating training material based around a single delivery method, rather than needing to devote resources to developing material for multiple methods.

 

That said, I think that the single model the BSA uses should meet some criteria before using used and forced upon the Scouting community as a whole. For example:

- Have some evidence that it is at least a better-than-most-alternatives way to deliver BSA training to BSA members

- Have some evidence that trainers themselves can easily become trained in its use

- Have a reasonable ratio between the amount of effort put into training using the method compared to the complexity of the skill being taught? (In other words, it should be relatively simple to teach simple concepts, while the effort needing to teach difficult concepts is proportional to their difficulty)

- Enable the trainer to adjust his training style based on the audience's needs and characters, and adapt the training style as the audience's characterics change.

 

In my opinion, EDGE meets some of these criteria, but not others.

 

But, in general I'm very much in favor of standardizing on a worth while training model. When so much of Scouting is based on learning new skills and transferring information between different people, I think that it is important for the BSA to have a decent model in place to guide those of us who aren't natural born educators*. It makes more sense than saying "just do whatever you want until you find something that works." That's not how we teach any other Scouting skill, and isn't compatible with the Scout Motto of "Be Prepared."

 

*I am not a naturally born educator, and I realize I may not have explained myself very well in this post. It gets kind of complicated trying to discuss the training methods trainers should use when training other trainers to train others...

[skeptic]

What is the point of this thread? This has been discussed "ad infinitum" here already. Call it whatever you want, but teach them a method that works. EDGE is one type, but similar models work well too. The main intent is for a scout to understand how to pass a skill on to another scout, demonstrate that knowledge directly, and be able to explain it.

 

WHY ARE WE NOT ABLE TO SIMPLY ADJUST OURSELVES TO THE VERBIAGE AND RUN WITH WHAT WORKS WITHIN THE GENERAL INTENT? LEARN TO NOT TAKE EVERYTHING "LITERALLY", PLEASE!

 

Yes, I am raising my voice. Everything does not need to be a problem. Use some rationality and work with it.

 

Off the soapbox.

[Eagle92]

Something I learned in my education courses back in the day was that you need to use the teaching method that best suits the students.

 

If EDGE works for someone, great! But Scouts must "BE PREPARED" to use other methods of instruction to teach skills that EDGE won't work with.

[moosetracker]

Skeptic says - WHY ARE WE NOT ABLE TO SIMPLY ADJUST OURSELVES TO THE VERBIAGE AND RUN WITH WHAT WORKS WITHIN THE GENERAL INTENT? LEARN TO NOT TAKE EVERYTHING "LITERALLY", PLEASE!

 

If this happens this forum would be a very lonely place, and need to shut down.. Quit complaining?? Impossible!!!

[sherminator505]

Skeptic, the point of this thread is to expolre why EDGE has been declared the be-all, end-all of all teaching methods, and is prescribed in the Boy Scout requirements. Re-read the original post.

 

I have nothing against EDGE. Personally, I find it to be a useful technique that can be used to teach any number of skills. That said, I have a big problem with how specific the requirements are with regard to EDGE.

 

Suppose you were perusing a new set of Boy Scout requirements and you came across the following:

 

"Start a cooking fire utilizing no more that 4 oz. (100g) of tinder, 1lb. (450g) of kindling and two matches. Diamond brand strike-anywhere matches must be used to satisfy this requirement."

 

Would you find this requirement to be overly specific? If so, then you get the point of this thread.

 

We are often told that we may not add or subtract from the requirements. When you tell your Scouts "Do whatever, just be prepared for the question later," you are putting yourself in the position of doing just that. I'm not saying that is wrong in the grand scheme of things, but what is served by setting up that conflict in the first place?

[Twocubdad]

Why EDGE? Because it was already in the BSA lexicon. Leading EDGE and Teaching EDGE has been in the Wood Badge syllabus since at least 2004 (and I assume since the course changed in 2000) and was added to the NYLT syllabus not long after. Our troop includes it in Troop Junior Leader Training for the very simple reason that the adults who are WB trained and the boys who are NYLT trained already understand the term.

 

Why create a new phrase when many of the leaders are already familiar with EDGE?

 

Everytime BSA issuse a new manual people here go nuts over the inconsistencies with the old material. As if BSA had the people to undertake a complete top to bottom remake of all program literature at once. They finally use an existing concept which is consistent with existing programs and we go nuts in the other direction.

 

You guys are putting WAY too much emphasis on this. If you believe it's been declared the be-all, end-all teaching method, then it's just that -- your belief. I sure don't see it that way. This is not the equivalent of specifying the Diamond brand matches to build a fire. It's like saying using a knife, ax and saw to prepare tender, kindling and fuel for a cooking fire. You guys would be wiggin' out because you already have a stack of firewood which was cut by a chain saw, or because it disallows breaking kindling over your knee. Read Second Class requirement 3d. Does anyone interpret that to prohibit breaking kindling over your knee?

 

EDGE is not some sweeping change in methodology, like when Youth Protection was insituted or the way First Aid protocol was changed to include universal precautions. It's just a new mnemonic for an age-old method.

 

If your troop really prefers teaching using -- I don't know -- sock puppets, go for it! Do you really think the EDGE police will shut you down?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Beavah]

Yah, I think sherm's point is that using EDGE is now part of the advancement requirements for several ranks, eh? That's new. And as we all know, no one is permitted to subtract from da requirements. . So, for da fastidious, EDGE is mandated, and kids must be proficient at EDGE.

 

Why not just make helpin' a younger fellow learn the requirement, without specifying how? They can use EDGE or whatever other technique they like. Their PL or TG or SM can help 'em learn to teach using whatever method da troop uses.

 

Especially since EDGE has no particular basis in da real world, it seems like mandating it is a bit silly.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

I think everyone is missing question, he is asking why does a scout have to dictate it to pass a requirement, and I agree. I can't recall a teaching style was ever a requirement before and while we can discuss the value of EDGE, I dont see why a scout should have to recite it to advance. Of course I think the Webelos requirement to visit a SM and fill out a Troop application is also out of context with the program.

 

Oh, and we do have the choice to participate or skip forum discussions. If a person finds they are so frustrated with a forum topic that they have to yell in text in a discussion, that is a red flag that maybe you are spending a little too much time on forums.

 

Barry

[Twocubdad]

Right, Beav, neither add nor subtract. The requirement says USE the EDGE method. Doesn't say explain it, doesn't say recite what E.D.G.E. stands for. Doesn't ask anyone to cite scholarly research on the topic. Just generally go about teaching a basic skill pretty much the same way most of us would do if the top of our heads -- we'll introduce the topic, show how it's done, help the student through it a couple times, then sit back and watch while he practices.

 

I assume most of us agree with the overall notion of including a requirement to teach someone else a skill. If you accept that, then I don't know how you could write a requirement any less specific than this. Specifying that the teacher discuss, show, help and watch is simply another way of saying you must actively teach the skill -- as compared with sink or swim or screaming at the other kid until he finally figures it out on his own. Don't laugh. I've seen it. I've also watched boys teach tying square knots by spending 20 minutes on Granny knots.

 

 

 

[sherminator505]

Actually, sink or swim is not the most horrible method, and it is actually applicable in certain situations.

[clemlaw]

The following is a serious question, because even though this subject is generally beat to death, I realize that I don't know the answer.

 

Is the EDGE method called by that name by anyone outside the BSA? I suspect that it's not, but I really don't know for sure.

 

That's kind of why it grates on my a little bit. If a Scout ties a "square knot", then presumably he has done something that the rest of the world recognizes, because people realize what a "square knot" is. It generally works well to join two pieces of rope, which is why Scouts are supposed to learn it. But they learn it by the name by which it is known to the rest of the world.

 

Like the EDGE method, a square knot is not always absolutely necessary. In many cases, the dreaded granny knot might work just as well. But it's reasonable to expect Scouts to do things the right way, so it's reasonable to have them learn to tie square knots, and not just granny knots. But it would be silly if the BSA gave the square knot a new name, and somehow suggested that the name was an important attribute. For example, if the BSA insisted on calling it the GRANDPA knot (to distinguish it from the granny knot), then when the Scout goes out in the real world and wants to tie two pieces of rope together, he would have to call it by the silly made up name.

 

Similarly, Scouts learn how to start "fires". Again, everyone knows what a "fire" is. If the BSA started calling them "Caloric Output Lumber Designs" (COLD for short), then the Scout would look silly out in the real world when he tells people that he knows how to build a COLD.

 

Well, it seems to me that no matter how well the EDGE method works, it's just not right to give it a name that, from a perusal of the requirements, seems to be of equal standing with other terminology, such as "square knot" or "fire". When he gets on the job and tells his boss that he can teach something to his co-workers using the EDGE method, he's probably going to get a perplexed stare. Because unlike "square knots" and "fires", I doubt if anybody else has ever heard of the EDGE method.

[jksolomon]

Hey, new to this forum, but thought I'd take a crack at Clemlaw's question. There is a leadership theory out in the non-BSA world that follows EDGE quite closely. It's called situational leadership. It's practically a mirror of leading EDGE. I think we use the term EDGE because it's easy to look at the acronym and remember the steps.

 

As to why a scout has to use teaching EDGE to teach another scout how to tie a square knot? The principles of tell, show, guide, step back and enable are proven teaching techniques that are invaluable for a boy to learn if he is going to become a leader. ALSO it ensures that the adult advisors know it, hopefully from Woodbadge at least, so they don't get stuck in the ED...only part of it.

 

Critical part of EDGE and situational leadership is training to understand how to recognize where on the EDGE or M1,M2,M3,M4 scale the learnee IS and modify your leadership/teaching approach to help them learn.

[Beavah]

Nah, clemlaw, EDGE is not a real-world term.

 

In fact, as jksoloman points out, it's apparently not a teaching/learning technique at all, and bears no resemblance to any modern, researched technique for teaching/learning.

 

It appears to come from da old Blanchard & Hersey situational leadership model as jksoloman and others have suggested. That's a leadership model, not a teaching model... in theory how yeh get teams to perform given different levels of team functioning and different levels of tasks da team needs to do. Has nothing to do with teaching/learning. In fact it's just one of a plethora of leadership models/theories, and a not particularly modern one at that.

 

Beavah