SR540Beaver Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 We'll have to agree to disagree. Don't know how I can be overthinking something cavemen naturally did to pass on skills to their clan. Which by the way, predates mimes by a few hundred thousand years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 99.9% of the time, a person will use EDGE in one form or fashion without even knowing it. So why require one to follow it? What are the ill effects on someone who is taught by the one scout in 1,000 who doesn't intuitively use it? In other words, why waste the ink? The text-message answer to those questions is a resounding IDK. Counter example: More than 50% of the time, I'd wager, the intuitive instinct when seeing a distressed swimmer is to "Go (unsupported)". It's probably what humans have done since prehistory -- to deadly effect (maybe 20% of the time). Imparting "Reach, Throw, Row, and Go (with support)" -- even though it doesn't make a spiffy acronym -- has prevented the untimely death of many ad hoc guards (probably myself included). Is there a teaching method that, applied universally, adds that kind of value to every boy's outdoor experience? If so, require it. If not, do what we often tell our SPL's: think before you make a rule you have to live by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 qwazse, I have no idea. I don't write the handbook or determine the requirements. I assure you, it would look quite different if I did. I'm just one of those guys that tries to provide the program as designed to the best of my ability. I think I can safely say that as long as there has been scouting, there has been an adult somewhere who thinks that national is off their rocker and that they have a superior idea. I realize I'm coming across as defending EDGE. That really isn't my intent. I just think that people are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The requirement is the requirement, goood or bad. As an adult leader, I feel honor bound to follow and provide the program as it is designed with the hope that someone up the ladder will eventually get an ear full, see the light and revise the requirement that people don't like. Until then, I'll follow what is in the book. It's the trustworthy thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Don't know how I can be overthinking something cavemen naturally did to pass on skills to their clan. Yah, again, that is a claim. One for which you have no evidence. That's da issue qwazse raised in da first post of this thread, eh? Is there any evidence anywhere, at all, to support da claims that you and others make about EDGE? The answer is a resounding NO!. Like all snake oil, it's all claims with no evidence. And every time yeh push back on such a claim, it morphs into somethin' else. If da snake oil didn't cure my warts, then it's not because snake oil doesn't work, it's because I must not have used it correctly! I must be overthinking it or misrepresenting it. It's not EDGE, it'd GDEDGEDG or "it's all part of 'E'" or some other such thing. After all, everyone has been using snake oil or leeches or whatnot since prehistoric times! That means it must be good! Cavemen always know best. Personally, I think our obligation is to be trustworthy to the children in our care, eh? And that means givin' them more than snake oil. Doin' the harder work of helping 'em learn how to teach well, with no quick fixes or jingoistic nonsense. Even if it's part of a "program" put together by some very well-meaning, very fallible people in a relatively small office in Texas. Our ethical obligations are to God and to people, eh? Never to things. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FScouter Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Snake oil is a method to intentionally deceive others for personal gain. Most of us are not expert or well-versed on the most effective methods for teaching skills to another. Some folks just can't do that and do a horrible job. Dismissing a good method in favor of the old seat-of-the-pants-figure-it-out-on-the-fly method doensn't make any sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC9DDI Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 FScouter - I agree with you 100%. But the question is whether or not EDGE is a good method. That can't be determined without evidence comparing its effectiveness to the "old seat-of-the-pants-figure-it-out-on-the-fly method." Would you let your doctor write you a prescription for a medication that's effectiveness can best be summed up as "in theory it might be better than nothing at all"? It seems like that type of reasoning is all that has been used to support EDGE. I'd really be interested to learn how the BSA found/developed EDGE, because I think that if they released that information it would help clear up a lot of the controversy surrounding the method. Does anyone with friends in high places (aka Texas) have any way of getting some more information right from the horses mouth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Snake oil? Hooey! Evidence? If I smack my thumb with a hammer, the hurt is the evidence. If people have been explaining a skill, demonstrating it, guiding someone thru it and then enabling them to do it and the person learns the skill and then passes it on, that is all the evidence you need. I've seen it done. I've done it. That is my personal experience and all the evidence I need to know it is one viable teaching tool out of a whole toolbox of tools. I really don't need a scientific, peer reviewed research paper with charts to know it works since I have personally experienced it. Be honest with us Beavah. Are you saying that a person can NOT use EDGE and have it result in the learning of a skill? I'm not asking if it is the best method. I'm not asking if it is the only method. I'm asking if you really, honestly believe it to be "snake oil" used to deceive an innocent person and rob them of the opportunity to learn a skill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Be honest with us Beavah. Are you saying that a person can NOT use EDGE and have it result in the learning of a skill? Yes, of course. Qwazse's "read the book" would be a fine example of someone learning a skill without EDGE. I have never used EDGE yet I think I've taught lots of folks of all ages many different skills. I'm asking if you really, honestly believe it to be "snake oil" used to deceive an innocent person and rob them of the opportunity to learn a skill? Snake oil isn't poison, eh? It's just fake. It costs people time or money without producin' the desired result consistently. But it doesn't harm 'em beyond that. But to answer da question clearly, yes, I really believe EDGE is snake oil. It's missing many if not most of da ingredients that are necessary to good, effective teaching and learning. Both in my own experience and apparently in da best research on da subject. So yep, just tellin' boys (or adults) "EDGE" shorts 'em on what they need to really be effective instructors. If yeh think about it for a minute, I'd bet yeh recognize that we often see this in young summer camp staffers, eh? Good scouts, well-meaning, trained in EDGE, but not very effective as instructors. Some adults, too. Where it seems to "work" as you report, there's a lot of other stuff goin' on. The trainer is drawing from his own experience and modeling some or many of da other skills like those from the research. They're really adjusting to the material and the learner and doin' Question-Coach-Relate-Explain-Discuss-Evaluate-Coach-Evaluate-Redesign-Feedback-Challenge-Explain-Rest-Review-Build. Or somesuch. They're just callin' it EDGE because that's the only thing they know the name for, but they're really doin' somethin' a lot more sophisticated. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Maybe snake oil is too harsh. Placebo may be more appropriate. You can use the term to make you feel like you're doing something standard and novel. That gives you the confidence to know what your doing is "right", you press forward, apply some creative juices, add a few steps, lather rinse repeat, and success!!! It's the stone in the stone soup. Maybe someone observed that the villagers were starving for no good reason, and said "If I plop an acronym in the pot the villagers (scouts & scouters) will bring out their veggies and stock (raw talent) and this soup'll get cooked faster." I'd just like to know who that guy was and which village he tested it on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 His name was Edgar Edgington from Edgesville. And now you know the ressssst of the story. Good day! Apologies to Paul Harvey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherminator505 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 "I'm asking if you really, honestly believe it to be "snake oil" used to deceive an innocent person and rob them of the opportunity to learn a skill?" I honestly believe that by specifying ONE method to teach a skill, you rob them of an opportunity to exercise some independent thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now