In the August 2013 issue of the Ensign, the LDS magazine, there was an article titled "Great Questions, Great Discussions" by Jack Lyon.
Normally, I do not get really excited about how-to sorts of articles, but the quality of teaching is a subject for which I have passion. While some of the items that were discussed hit the nail on the head, others were disappointing or even incorrect.
From the article:
"“Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to.
“What is the most important principle of the gospel?” is also an ineffective question. No one knows the answer the teacher is looking for except the teacher, who is essentially saying, “Guess what I’m thinking.”"
While the first question is an excellent example of an ineffective question, I immediately had to take issue with the second example. "What is the most important principle of the gospel?" is not an ineffective question... the way that the teacher handled the question, or the intent behind it was ineffective.
It would be completely appropriate for a teacher to ask students what they feel is the most important principle of the gospel, as long as they understood that a case can be made for many different principles. It also becomes the responsibility of a teacher that uses these questions to ensure that discussion and the expression of opinion does not devolve into contention, and that student contributions should be valued as much as possible. A student that answers with "faith" can probably present a strong case for so answering. A good discussion on how vital faith is could ensue. On the other hand, a student that answers "repentance" can present a very strong case for how important repentance is. Neither one of the students needs to be wrong.
On the other hand, if a teacher is attempting to present a lesson of faith, they may want to restrict open ended questions to that subject. A question can be effective in some cases and ineffective in others.
The article uses faith as the assigned topic as it suggests the following:
"If you want the class to have a discussion about something specific like faith, consider saying something like this: “Today we’ll be talking about faith, the first principle of the gospel.” Then ask a question about faith that doesn’t have a specific answer:
1. “What part has faith played in your life?”
2. “Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?”
3. “What are some ways we can increase our faith?”"
Unfortunately, only one out of the three suggestions is actually a good question. Below is an analysis of each one.
1. "What part has faith played in your life?"
Asking what part faith has played in the lives of students is asking for one of the following:
- the student that loves to pontificate going on about their lives
- the student that begins weeping to the point that anything they say is unintelligible
- the student that gives a valid example, followed by three other students that give similar examples
- the student that uses redundant statements to make a thirty-second comment become a fifteen-minute ordeal
Personal experiences may be appropriate for a class... but if people making unprepared statements is superior to the material that the teacher is presenting after having prepared, the teacher needs to improve. When personal stories become the backbone of the lesson, there is little gospel teaching that occurs.
2. "Why do you think the Lord wants us to have faith?"
This is actually an excellent question. Encouraging thoughtful pondering about gospel topics is a fundamental responsibility of a gospel instructor. Naturally, if the instructor has a preconceived "right" answer in mind, then the question becomes ineffective.
3. "What are some ways we can increase our faith?"
This is a terrible question. Any question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, and pray" is a bad idea. What are the odds that a student will hear an answer to this like "prayer can increase faith" and then think to themselves "Wow! I had not previously considered that prayer might increase my faith. This answer has completely changed my outlook on life, and I will always ensure that I pray every day from now till the end of time..."? Not good.
Everyone attending a Gospel Doctrine class should have enough of an understanding of Gospel principles to know that reading scriptures, prayer, church attendance, and other "Sunday School" answers apply. This type of question is just like the first "bad" example the author gave at the beginning: “Who were the first two people on earth?” is an ineffective question because the answer is so obvious that no one wants to respond—or sees a need to."
The article goes on to talk about the importance of using the scriptures. This is spot-on:
"Although the manual should be used to prepare the lesson and is a great source of open-ended questions, the scriptures should remain the primary focus of our teaching and learning."
I would suggest this implies that the backbone of the lesson should never be personal experiences. They can be present, but they are not a substitute for canon.
The article then discusses staying focused:
"There is a challenge in having a lot of classroom discussion: it’s easy for the discussion to get off track. It’s important that you prepare your lesson well so that you know where you want it to go and so that you’re ready, if necessary, to bring the class back to the main topic of discussion. Usually all you need to provide is a little guidance: “That’s interesting, but I think we’re a little off track. Let’s get back to our discussion of faith now.”"
While getting focus back is important, the statement that is suggested seems like it could be offensive... (and I am not one to shy away from abrasive statements). Essentially it comes of as "what you said was irrelevant..."
Perhaps more effective would be to (as politely as possible) interrupt the student that is trailing off with a question that asks "so are you saying that..." and then say something that ties into your lesson. If they confirm it, you can immediately move on having regained control. If they indicate that was not their intention, ask them to explain (as politely as possible) how their comment relates to the subject. It is possible that the student was saying something relevant, and that they may not have realized that others were missing a connection that they saw.
Additionally... always remember to thank students for contributions.
Finally, the article went back to discussing personal stories. As I previously mentioned, there is a place for this, but it ought not be the core of any gospel doctrine lesson... The heart of every lesson ought to be the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
After teaching the Nephites about faith, penitence, humility, baptism, and the Holy Ghost, he declared the following:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth." (3 Nephi 11:39-41, emphasis added)
Ultimately, the goal of a teacher is not to talk about their mission, their family, or the missions and families of their students... it is to reiterate the importance of Christian principles that have the power to make bad men good, and good men better. Discussion about triviality or mediocre questions ought to give way to meaningful discussion about the power of Christ himself. Though there are many topics that can occupy time for 45 minutes, discussions that bring classes closer to Jesus will continue to be important to those involved when the 45 minutes have expired.
