Wanted: Scholarly Articles on EDGE

[acco40]

I've used EDGE. I've also let Scouts put up their tents "wrong" and allowed them to experience what happens when it rains or the wind blows. I've also made a game by blind folding a Scout and having his patrol verbally guide him on how to put up a tent while racing a different patrol doing the same thing - inverse French mime method?

 

As a child, I enjoyed school, school work (especially math, history, science) and didn't quite comprehend this aversion to "it's like school work" that many have. I didn't like the "just watch me do it" type of teaching. For physical things like tying a knot, just let me try and let me ask questions when I become stuck worked best.

 

There is a lot of leeway in utilizing EDGE. It is not some grand unified theory nor a panacea for all that ails the BSA. However, it is a method and not a bad one at that.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[John-in-KC]

It's a tool for training. Drill Sergeant shouting is a tool. Wall to Wall Counseling (Field Manual 22-106) is a tool. Follow me and do as I do is a tool. A couple of those tools would not pass Scouting muster, but they are still tools, and they are still used in the real world.

 

The point of all this is teach the trainer a way to teach a skill to a learner.

 

So, Rick and Beavah, I'm going to ask you: Describe the cognitive and physical skills you would use to introduce training/learning techniques to a 13 year old who in turn will train a physical skill to an 11 year old, please.

[KC9DDI]

I've also made a game by blind folding a Scout and having his patrol verbally guide him on how to put up a tent while racing a different patrol doing the same thing

 

Hmmm... Sounds very similar to an activity we do during NYLT, which is based on EDGE.

 

I've also let Scouts put up their tents "wrong" and allowed them to experience what happens when it rains or the wind blows.

 

Did you first explain, demonstrate or guide them on the correct way to assemble the tent? But, when it comes time to enable, you enable the group for either success or failure.

 

I guess this highlights two of my problems with EDGE. 1) It can be argued that EDGE applies to any training situation, (all you have to do is show that you've explained, demonstrated, guided or enabled the group at some point). Which leads me to #2) EDGE seems to be missing a component that evaluates the training method was appropriate or successful. A mantra from some of the "old" training materials was "For teaching to be effective, learning must take place." The old material (although inadequate in many different areas) seemed to get this part right - that the ultimate goal in effective teaching is successful learning, that's the measure of success. That's one of the things EDGE seems to lack - the component that closes the loop between trainer and learner, and guages whether or not the trainer has been successful in conducting training.

[Beavah]

Describe the cognitive and physical skills you would use to introduce training/learning techniques to a 13 year old who in turn will train a physical skill to an 11 year old, please.

 

Yah, I don't think there's a generic, eh? Yeh teach different kids and different subjects in different ways. But I put some thoughts over on da other thread

 

Beavah

[HICO_Eagle]

I don't think EDGE is poppycock, I just don't think it's some magic formula or really anything new. Like so many fads before it, it does have some elements of truth and the mnemonic is a decent way to remember steps of instruction if you need the memory jogger.

 

The concepts of giving someone the context of why they're learning something (Explain), showing them how to do it (Demonstrate), taking them through the process of doing it themselves (Guide) and then freeing them to do it themselves (Enable) is a pretty solid teaching method that goes beyond motor skills. The methodology worked for me in Calculus, First Aid, Marksmanship, etc. long before I ever heard of "EDGE". The only thing that annoyed me is the way it's sometimes taught as something revolutionary -- or the only "approved" method of instruction.

 

Forget the scholarly articles that come up with pseudo-formalism and try to make instruction or education seem like quantum physics. As far as the Dept of Education goes, they've done a sterling job for the American education system since their inception (sarcasm intended).

[SR540Beaver]

KC9DDI,

 

Here is what the requirement says, "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."

 

Closing the loophole is the statement of, "so that he is prepared to pass those requirements to his unit leader's satisfaction."

 

A Star Scout doesn't just use EDGE and get signed off on his requirement. The boy he taught must actually be able to be signed off on the requirement he was taught for the Star Scout to be signed off. There is accountability built in.

 

Of course, that is if you actually follow the requirements as written in the book instead of viewing them as passing thoughts or mere guidelines. I guess an SM who runs his own version of the program can just pencil whip it or change it to his liking.

[Beavah]

Yah, so SR540, what's a lad to do if he tries EDGE but it doesn't work to help a kid learn? Maybe the learner is ADHD and won't sit still for Explain or Demonstrate. Maybe the teacher is kind of shy and would rather just go direct to Guiding rather than get up and do an Explain-Demo in front of da group.

 

As a SM, if the boy does his best at EDGE but the learner doesn't learn, do yeh sign off?

 

As a SM, if the boy does NOT use EDGE but the learner picks up the skill, do yeh refuse to sign off?

 

Beavah

 

 

[perdidochas]

Beavah--you are creating a strawman version of EDGE.

 

For the square knot requirement using EDGE (Tenderfoot requirement):

Explain--square knot is used to join two pieces of same-sized rope together around an object.

Demonstrate--tie a square knot.

Guide--Work with the student to tie the knot. May need to re-demonstrate, etc. but that's part of the real EDGE (not the strawman EDGE).

Enable--Give the student a chance to use the square knot for real. (maybe tie a bundle up with it).

 

No talking in front of an audience. No time for an ADD boy to get bored while seated.

[KC9DDI]

SR540Beaver - That's not quite what I'm talking about. The closed loop in that situation is a result of that specific rank requirement, not the training/instruction method. I don't have a background in education, but annecdotally most of the "train-the-trainer" type courses I've taken have taught that learner progress and understanding should be measured continually through the training, and the trainer's delivery should be adjusted to meet the learner's needs in "real time."

 

The situation you described is more like the trainer thinking he's done, sending the learner off to someone else to be tested, and then having that someone else tell him whether he was a successful trainer or not based on whether the learner passed the test. And again, that's only in the context of this single specific requirement, not part of the training method as a whole.

[Kudu]

Beavah writes:

 

Maybe the learner is ADHD and won't sit still for Explain or Demonstrate

 

Baden-Powell designed Scouting with the assumption that all boys are ADHD

 

It's all about doing stuff with your hands.

 

Remember that the BSA's top EDGE experts do not Explain or Demonstrate the Patrol Method in the Patrol Method session of Scoutmaster training either.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[KC9DDI]

Beav - I think you're hitting on two separate issues. The first is whether the EDGE method itself has any merit, the second is whether we should require its use in rank requirements.

 

Skimming over the Scout to Life requirements, it looks like that a good number of requirements do specify a general process or method to use. I would think that this is because, in some cases, the process is just as important, or more important, than the end result. We require Scouts to use the buddy system, Leave No Trace, certain first aid methods, certain fire building tools, etc. I think there's good reason for that - to teach a reusable method that can be applied to many situations, not just to go on a hike, build a fire, or stop a bloody nose.

 

Now, whether or not EDGE should be the standard we use is another question - but I think its important to distinguish between the two issues.

[evmori]

The way the requirement should read

 

While a Star Scout, 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.

 

This allows the use of any method that will work for the teaching Scout and the Scout being taught.

[Beavah]

Yah, KC9, I agree those are separate issues. And you raise a third, whether we should specify any methods or only outcomes.

 

I'm sorta with evmori, eh? I like da notion of just specifying that you successfully help another scout learn a skill. That means that you both adapt to the needs of the learner and yeh teach using your own strengths, rather than followin' a cookbook designed by someone else.

 

At da same time, I think once yeh get beyond da snake oil, there's no merit to EDGE. It's not da way people learn, it's not supported by research, and in what I've seen it tends to lead to poor practice as often as not. I don't think that's a straw man, I think that perdidochas' knot tying example is overly simplistic, and once again fudges EDGE and ignores alternatives. Just give the boy the handbook and let him practice. Just tie the knot with him in workin' a task.

 

The third question you raise is interesting, eh? Should there be a national specification of a teaching method. I'm an old conservative fellow, eh? I don't care for such things. I think when teaching yeh are providing a service to the learner, and that should be your focus. That's inherently local, eh? Yeh can't specify a national method that will really meet the needs of each child in every troop, nor can yeh specify a method that uses da strengths of each potential instructor. Nationalizing things at best only gets yeh low level mediocrity. And that's what we get often enough in da BSA.

 

I think beginners like da seeming comfort of following a national document. Makes it seem simple, makes 'em feel knowledgable. But it's a cheat. To really do what's right for kids, there's no simple snake oil, eh? Yeh have to do the hard work to really learn stuff, including really learn how to teach or help kids teach. Just like to really be safe on outings yeh have to learn about risks and safety systems and how to exercise good judgment in various situations, not blindly follow a national document.

 

If yeh care about outcomes, then there aren't any shortcuts.

 

Beavah

[SR540Beaver]

Beavah,

 

EDGE is exactly what an ADHD kid would need. Two scouts, one on one working together using hands on to learn how to do something. EDGE isn't just for class room teaching. In fact, the only part of EDGE that would remotely apply to a classroom might be the Explain part. But explaining something doesn't mean a dry 30 minute lecture in every case......especially when the requirement is for a Life Scout to teach a younger BOY (as in individual) a skill. Think two boys in a patrol on a campout, one a Life Scout, one younger and teaching how to tie a knot. Forget the formality of an acronym and following the E D G E to the letter of the law. This isn't court. 99.9% of the time, a person will use EDGE in one form or fashion without even knowing it.

 

One would think that something as simple as pushing a pushbroom would be a no brainer. You'd be surprised how many kids have no idea how to use one and end up pulling it to them or trying to push it like a bulldozer. It usually goes something like this. Bobby, part of your job working in the kitchen at summer camp will be sweeping the dining hall. You've seen what the floor looks like at the end of a meal. If we left it there meal after meal, we'd have dirt, grass, food, etc. up to our knees by the end of the week, not to mention mice and bugs. We have to keep it clean and I'm going to show you how we use a pushbroom to sweep. That's all the explanation needs to be. The next thing I'd do is demonstrate how and how not to use the pushbroom, which will require me to continue doing some explaining. Once I've demonstrated it, I hand him the broom and tell him to take a crack at it. If he misses something or didn't understand something, we'll go back over it. When it looks like he has gotten the hang of it thru the guidance phase, I'm going to go back to peeling spuds while he sweeps the dining hall on his own. When he's done, I'll look to see how he did. If he did a good job, I could tell him that Tommy needs to learn how and I have a ton of spuds to peel....could he teach Tommy? If he did a poor job, we'll step back thru the process.

 

That is what EDGE is. It is not a formal 4 step process like fold on line A, cut on line B, insert tab 1 into slot 2. It is a process of give and take based on the ability of the teacher and the student and their interaction. It's really that simple and not nearly as rigid as you want to make it.

 

You're way over thinking something extremely simple and in use since pre-history.

[Beavah]

Nah, I'm not overthinkin' it, SR540. You're overthinkin' it. . That is to say, you're using your decades of experience to modify and interpret EDGE on the fly to make it work. Cut short an explanation here, shift something there, illustrate with da simplest of tasks without considering others.

 

It's your experience which is makin' you successful, not EDGE. Ds question is whether a beginner can get brief training on EDGE and succeed without having all your experience. I say "no". Beginners following EDGE quite naturally do it literally, step by step, because that's what the method actually is and says.

 

It's like me followin' G2SS on a paddling trip, eh? It says have life jackets and proper equipment and swim tests and do three hours of instruction. So I fill in how to properly fit PFDs and what proper equipment is for da river and time of year and I might do more than three hours of instruction or less depending on the skills of the people as I see 'em. In short, my experience with kids and paddling fills in everything that's needed to make G2SS work. So I can claim that G2SS is great, it's da way everyone has been doin' paddling since e dawn of time or whatever.

 

But give that to a novice, and they fail. They go out not known' how to size PFDs or thinking that 3 hours of instruction is always enough or not knowing to check river levels because that's not one of da 9 points. They'll take 10 novices to 1 instructor and think it's safe because they've followed da book.

 

That's EDGE. It's got no basis. Nobody else uses it. It hasn't been demonstrated to be successful. Even with da simplest of tasks like broom-pushing it's a stretch. It's just vague enough that experienced folks can imagine it works by filling in all kinds of details that aren't really there.

 

B