Make classes more like a conversation, less like a lecture.

[JLHPROF]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663412/Shaking-up-Sunday-School-Revolution-in-LDS-teaching-seeks-to-activate-learners.html

• Why alter all teaching in the church?
  LDS leaders say they want to help church members become better — and more active — learners, a critical skill in an age saturated by information.
  
  In the past, teachers in Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary and priesthood classes often focused on presenting information. It was common to hear a teacher cut off a class discussion by saying he or she had more material to cover. Leaders want to drum that out of the culture.

So this should be good for some discussion.
What do you see as the perks to this new teaching philosophy and what do you see as the drawbacks?

Is this going to result in members have more understanding of the gospel or less?

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663412/Shaking-up-Sunday-School-Revolution-in-LDS-teaching-seeks-to-activate-learners.html

• Why alter all teaching in the church?
  LDS leaders say they want to help church members become better — and more active — learners, a critical skill in an age saturated by information.
  
  In the past, teachers in Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary and priesthood classes often focused on presenting information. It was common to hear a teacher cut off a class discussion by saying he or she had more material to cover. Leaders want to drum that out of the culture.

So this should be good for some discussion.
What do you see as the perks to this new teaching philosophy and what do you see as the drawbacks?

Is this going to result in members have more understanding of the gospel or less?

I think more of an emphasis on discussion rather than it just being a lecture is a good thing.  I don't know if this will change much, but I think it's an effort in the right direction.

I do have to say though, that there are still quite a few members who hesitate or who are even afraid to raise their hands with questions or comments related to taboo (for lack of a better term) topics.  We get feedback on that privately from members in our ward.  

I also know that attendance in Gospel Doctrine is way down compared to how many adults should be in there (going from who is attending Sacrament meeting) and we hear that they leave early for a variety of reasons.  One of the reasons we hear over and over is that "it's boring and nothing new is ever discussed".

Now, if we could just get these 2 groups together....  

.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ALarson

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

• Why alter all teaching in the church?
  LDS leaders say they want to help church members become better — and more active — learners, a critical skill in an age saturated by information.
  
  In the past, teachers in Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary and priesthood classes often focused on presenting information. It was common to hear a teacher cut off a class discussion by saying he or she had more material to cover. Leaders want to drum that out of the culture.

The problem is that the class can go into free fall discussions and the church wants teachers to stay with the lesson topic.  For some teachers, this implies a large dose of lecture and limited discussion.  Teachers need more training on how to control the flow of the learning.

When I was a youth in NYC, our teacher was a professor at Columbia University.  That was truly an experience.  He would write the topic on the blackboard and sit down in the class to hear what we had to say.  Instead of standing in front of the class, he often was sitting down, or standing in back, behind the students.  In effect,he was one of the participants, but carefully guiding the lesson.

It was an amazing experience.

Edited September 28, 2016 by cdowis

[JAHS]

57 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663412/Shaking-up-Sunday-School-Revolution-in-LDS-teaching-seeks-to-activate-learners.html

• Why alter all teaching in the church?
  LDS leaders say they want to help church members become better — and more active — learners, a critical skill in an age saturated by information.
  
  In the past, teachers in Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary and priesthood classes often focused on presenting information. It was common to hear a teacher cut off a class discussion by saying he or she had more material to cover. Leaders want to drum that out of the culture.

So this should be good for some discussion.
What do you see as the perks to this new teaching philosophy and what do you see as the drawbacks?

Is this going to result in members have more understanding of the gospel or less?

"Instead, they want to emphasize class discussion so teachers can learn to understand and meet the needs of the people in the room and encourage them to activate their own personal development."

In our High Priests group all you have to do is introduce the subject and it is all discussion (except of course for those who are sleeping). It's the easiest class to teach, because everyone teaches every Sunday and we never have the same instructor every Sunday; we take turns teaching. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

This is nothing new. It's one of the theories of teaching that recirculate over and over. 

Teachers are being renamed "facilitators" in professional education circles. I suppose that turns faculties into facilitatories. Facilitators facilitate conversations by shepherding the partiticipants toward some pre-determined conclusion. Somehow this is supposed to be better than teaching.

Either way is manipulative because there has to be some direction to the discussion that leads to a way the mastery of the material can be assessed. True open-ended discussion goes wherever it wants, but that is not always helpful if there is specific material that must be learned. For example, it would not be helpful to open up the discussion of brain surgery techniques when facilitating new brain surgeons.

Someone in the room has to know what's up and direct the group to correct understandings. Of corse this doesn't necessarily mean lecturing from notes or a textbook. However, meaningful discussion presupposes some basic knowledge on the part of the participants. If no one in the room knows the answers or where to find them not much learning will take place, but maybe everyone will feel good.

 

 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

"Instead, they want to emphasize class discussion so teachers can learn to understand and meet the needs of the people in the room and encourage them to activate their own personal development."

In our High Priests group all you have to do is introduce the subject and it is all discussion (except of course for those who are sleeping). It's the easiest class to teach, because everyone teaches every Sunday and we never have the same instructor every Sunday; we take turns teaching.

While I am certain this makes for a more pleasant class and more perspectives and ideas, do you find this increases the amount of actual gospel information being taught or decreases it?
Facilitating discussion is good, absolutely.

But if you allowed a bunch of 5th graders to openly discuss WWII it would be helpful if they knew where Germany was on a map first.
I realize that's a bit extreme of an example.  And I also realize that some High Priests are very knowledgeable.    But I'll never forget the look on a lifelong member's face in Gospel Doctrine when the teacher mentioned in passing that Shem was Melchizedek.  Pure shock.

I guess that's what I'm asking.  Will the increase in perspectives result in an increase in learning of gospel truth, or just in an increase in perspective on living the gospel (something experienced members absolutely provide in open discussion)?

 

 

Quote

(except of course for those who are sleeping).

Whenever a baby cried in Church my Father always said "just ordain him a High Priest and he'll go right to sleep".

 

[JAHS]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

While I am certain this makes for a more pleasant class and more perspectives and ideas, do you find this increases the amount of actual gospel information being taught or decreases it?

In my High Priest group it increases it; they are all very knowledgeable.  I feel more spiritually fed when I hear comments from a wide range of people rather than sitting there and have someone lecture at me. (Even more would doze off than do now). Of course the ratio of teaching/discussion is going to be different depending on the age, knowledge, and experience of the students. Getting the right mix for best effect is the trick.  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Whenever a baby cried in Church my Father always said "just ordain him a High Priest and he'll go right to sleep".

 Best line I've heard in years. Don't know why I was never ordained a High Priest now. I seem to have at least one of the qualifications.

Glenn

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663412/Shaking-up-Sunday-School-Revolution-in-LDS-teaching-seeks-to-activate-learners.html

• Why alter all teaching in the church?
  LDS leaders say they want to help church members become better — and more active — learners, a critical skill in an age saturated by information.
  
  In the past, teachers in Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary and priesthood classes often focused on presenting information. It was common to hear a teacher cut off a class discussion by saying he or she had more material to cover. Leaders want to drum that out of the culture.

So this should be good for some discussion.
What do you see as the perks to this new teaching philosophy and what do you see as the drawbacks?

Is this going to result in members have more understanding of the gospel or less?

I think it will hopefully lead to more participation, which leads to more thinking and learning.

The flip side is that some will bring up stuff with which the lessons disagree. Teachers will need to learn how to handle this.

Things like "The lesson teaches such and such. Why do you believe/say that is wrong? might be an appropriate response. There is no hard and pat rule. Teaching is an art. But I think it will be better than going to class to record info over and over like a robot. It should promote interest, and participation. But the "we are right, and you are wrong" kind of feeling isn't one I will miss.

Edited September 29, 2016 by RevTestament

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is nothing new. It's one of the theories of teaching that recirculate over and over. 

Teachers are being renamed "facilitators" in professional education circles. I suppose that turns faculties into facilitatories. Facilitators facilitate conversations by shepherding the partiticipants toward some pre-determined conclusion. Somehow this is supposed to be better than teaching.

Either way is manipulative because there has to be some direction to the discussion that leads to a way the mastery of the material can be assessed. True open-ended discussion goes wherever it wants, but that is not always helpful if there is specific material that must be learned. For example, it would not be helpful to open up the discussion of brain surgery techniques when facilitating new brain surgeons.

Someone in the room has to know what's up and direct the group to correct understandings. Of corse this doesn't necessarily mean lecturing from notes or a textbook. However, meaningful discussion presupposes some basic knowledge on the part of the participants. If no one in the room knows the answers or where to find them not much learning will take place, but maybe everyone will feel good.

 

Yep. It kind of makes me laugh. I look at the Brigham Young manual from 1997 and found this:

"Involve as many people as possible during the instruction period by inviting them to read aloud, answer questions, or share experiences. You can make special assignments when preparing lessons, being sensitive to the readiness of class members to participate."

I know that and other instruction is given in at least the last 20 years. Education week classes have been taught about it, there are things at lds.org and mormon channel. 

I was excited when things changed with the youth because it was calling more attention to teaching this way. I have thought for years it would be nice to put more emphasis on teaching this way for adults.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865663412/Shaking-up-Sunday-School-Revolution-in-LDS-teaching-seeks-to-activate-learners.html

• Why alter all teaching in the church?
  LDS leaders say they want to help church members become better — and more active — learners, a critical skill in an age saturated by information.
  
  In the past, teachers in Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary and priesthood classes often focused on presenting information. It was common to hear a teacher cut off a class discussion by saying he or she had more material to cover. Leaders want to drum that out of the culture.

So this should be good for some discussion.
What do you see as the perks to this new teaching philosophy and what do you see as the drawbacks?

Is this going to result in members have more understanding of the gospel or less?

I quoted above about the front of the manuals. Not worrying about covering all the material has also been there for YEARS.  "Allow good discussions to continue rather than trying to cover all the teachings." I did notice recently that this was a suggestion in one of the tips that went along with the lessons - perhaps few read it in the front and they thought it would be more likely to be read in small doses each week?

If teachers will do this then I think it will be great. 

Here's a perk for some and I admit I am one of that some: classes are usually more interesting than having a teacher lecture.

Not all classes are condusive to this type of teaching. Education week classes with 400 people don't work well this way, but I have been in smaller ed week classes that taught on teaching this way and modeled what they were teaching. I got so much more out of those classes because we had to take action. I retained the info better. The Spirit taught us better. It made me excited to teach. In the same way with gospel principles we will retain them better. The Spirit will answer our questions better because this method helps us to have more questions. 

Elder Bednar talks about this a lot. Check out his videos on mornon channel in the teaching area. We are agents who act, not lumps on a log to be acted on.

Drawbacks - yes and no. It will be difficult for some teachers.  I've found that even though all the resources have been there few know about them.  They also don't have a lot of examples of teaching that way.  For some it is very out of the box teaching. I know it did not come natural for me. I have been actively working on teaching that way, but still I struggle. 

But it's worth it. I see people making connections they didn't have before.  

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

While I am certain this makes for a more pleasant class and more perspectives and ideas, do you find this increases the amount of actual gospel information being taught or decreases it?
Facilitating discussion is good, absolutely.

But if you allowed a bunch of 5th graders to openly discuss WWII it would be helpful if they knew where Germany was on a map first.
I realize that's a bit extreme of an example.  And I also realize that some High Priests are very knowledgeable.    But I'll never forget the look on a lifelong member's face in Gospel Doctrine when the teacher mentioned in passing that Shem was Melchizedek.  Pure shock.

I guess that's what I'm asking.  Will the increase in perspectives result in an increase in learning of gospel truth, or just in an increase in perspective on living the gospel (something experienced members absolutely provide in open discussion)?

 

 

Whenever a baby cried in Church my Father always said "just ordain him a High Priest and he'll go right to sleep".

 

Somehow, somewhere the basics have to be mastered and that takes hard work. In my violin studies. I can't perform a Mozart concerto well unless I have mastered the physical techniques, understood  the historical practices,  and amassed some interpretive skills that are required. Some little kids can learn to play them, but there is criticism that they are just parroting their teacher. More difficult pieces require more technical and interpretive chops. The goal is to master all technical difficulties and then use them to achieve personal, masterful, emotional, and intellectually persuasive interpretations.

This is true in any pursuit, including learning the gospel. Basic knowledge of the material must be mastered in order to have meaningful and motivational discussions. How and when a student obtains that knowledge is the rub. Many just don't want too make the effort or don't see it is important. A good teacher encourages that effort. There must be a good foundation on which the student can build before further meaningful discussion can take place.

One of the assessments our state used to measure competency in music composition illustrates this point. The student was required to compose and perform a short advertising jingle for a given product such as bubble gum. To do that well would require skills far more advanced than could be gathered in a general music class that met for 30 minutes twice a week fo 6 months. The rare student produced anything close to good. We had to assess with what they could do, much of which was not even rudimentary. It seemed to me kind of fraudulent .

 

if all the high priests who feel asleep in church were laid end to end, they would be much more comfortable. 

What's the difference between elders and high priests? Depends.

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Doctrine 612]

my experience has always been to ask lots of questions and answer lots of questions. The teaching no greater call talked a lot this. 

One of the draw backs from teaching is that the students ( not all but most ) never read the lessons and don't pay attention during class.

i wrote a work book for the gospel principle class to give to anyone that wanted it, some did and most did not, but the ones that did liked having a place to write down their answers that they discovered on there own.

also if there was some way to give the members goals for the class or awards, something to motivate them.

ok done with my rant lol

[boblloyd91]

I recently had a discussion with my brother in law that seems to me to highlight how classes can improve in church. Apparently he was in a class earlier this year where the discussion was on the first chapters of Nephi. Most members in the class were high priests and other older members who knew the scripture stories well. My brother in law was interested in discussing some of the more fascinating aspects and doctrines in 1 Nephi, and have a more in depth discussion. However the teacher discouraged this, saying that the class was focused on simply telling the story. She only wanted to discuss the basics, that being Lehi and Nephi going to the desert, and talk about the narrative, not any meaning behind it. When I heard this I was appalled, as everyone in that class knew the story, however because the teacher was so intent on sticking to a script and checking off boxes, no real learning or inspiration could have happened. I hope that this new push makes real changes happen and church is where our spiritual hunger and thirst can be satisfied, rather then it being a building people go to for three hours to be bored. I don't mean to sound negative, and do believe that there are many wonderful teachers out there, but I think as a church we need to make our lessons more meaningful.

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

my experience has always been to ask lots of questions and answer lots of questions. The teaching no greater call talked a lot this. 

One of the draw backs from teaching is that the students ( not all but most ) never read the lessons and don't pay attention during class.

i wrote a work book for the gospel principle class to give to anyone that wanted it, some did and most did not, but the ones that did liked having a place to write down their answers that they discovered on there own.

also if there was some way to give the members goals for the class or awards, something to motivate them.

ok done with my rant lol

That's interesting that this is your experience.  I've found that the lesson is rarely read either way, but I'm ok with that.  

I tried to read the lesson for awhile,  but usually I find myself inspired to study something else.  For example before going to Israel I wanted to read the New Testament more. A few weeks ago I used Hearing the Voice of the Lord as a sort of guide. I figure that I can read the lesson when I don't have something else I am studying on my own. 

I've found that people pay more attention with the "new" method. More voices and opinions to hear. More chance that you will say something in class.  Less "Sunday School" answers.

I'd say that it was a difference in classes, but most of my experience is in Gospel Principles. More often than not we didn't have investigators or new members so maybe make up of membership in the class makes a difference?

[Jeanne]

The last 10 or 12 minutes of any class..close the books..close the ensign magazine..and have a question/answer period and discuss.  That would really be something to look forward too..and for heavens sakes..listen.

[bsjkki]

This article addresses this topic and highlights some pitfalls to avoid. "Occasionally, however, we hear of discussions that are open and lively, but at the conclusion there has been little, if any, doctrinal focus or emphasis. In essence, there have been some therapeutic conversations or a sharing of experiences, but little connection to doctrine. I do not think anyone does this intentionally, but sometimes we may lose focus and think that a vigorous discussion, independent of doctrine, equals a successful class. It does not. Discussion is a means, not an end."

https://www.lds.org/church/news/teach-the-doctrine-discussion-is-a-means-not-an-end?lang=eng

We have been going through this article in our teacher training council.  It has lead to effective discussions on how to effectively lead discussions and also teach doctrine. We have discussed many 'real' questions on how to be more effective teachers.

[rongo]

The Church bureaucracy and Church programs go through fads. I think the "Come Follow Me" and "teacher council" movement is one of them. I actually think that, overall, the Church and the members would be better served by reverting to the old manuals.  I say that as a public school teacher of 14 years and someone who has extensive priesthood leadership experience and has "time in the trenches" with "Come Follow Me" and as a stake sunday school president (~ 2 years). 

"Come Follow Me" sounds good on paper. Teachers rely on the Spirit, with minimal manual, and seek to elicit more discussion, thought, and participation of students in place of "lecture/listen." In reality, all good teachers from all eras intuitively have involved students and have been naturally engaging. I don't think this applies as much to Gospel Doctrine or Gospel Essentials, but one major drawback with the youth is the fact that they have lessons on the same things twice a Sunday, every year. I am a fun, exciting, engaging teacher, but after years of the same cycle, it gets really old for the both teachers and students. Now, the seminary scripture mastery scriptures have been replaced with the 12 "Come Follow Me" doctrines. If, as I've heard, the Church is piloting "Come Follow Me" for adults, too, then look out! Boredom in GD and GE will reach heights hitherto unknown. Even the most insightful, experienced, and engaging of teachers is hard-pressed to teach "The Godhead" or "The Atonement" or "Being Christlike" every Sunday for a whole month. And then next year: second verse, same as the first. 

I applaud the Brethren and the COB bureaucracy for attemtping to address the decline in gospel literacy by "reducing and simplifying" and focusing on basics. Ironically, I think that the result will actually be the accelerating of this decline, despite the good intentions. Just as missionary teaching under "Preach My Gospel" has declined (don't believe me? Go out on splits for teaching appointments ---- granted, there are still outstanding missionaries, too. I'm speaking of overall), I think that gospel and doctrinal literacy will continue to deteriorate under "de-manualized," repetitive lessons. The only antidote, really, is for LDS homes to become more places of intrinsic gospel learning. As less and less gospel learning takes place in our homes, it doesn't matter what program reboots or revamps we undergo. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by rongo

[bsjkki]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church bureaucracy and Church programs go through fads. I think the "Come Follow Me" and "teacher council" movement is one of them. I actually think that, overall, the Church and the members would be better served by reverting to the old manuals.  I say that as a public school teacher of 14 years and someone who has extensive priesthood leadership experience and has "time in the trenches" with "Come Follow Me" and as a stake sunday school president (~ 2 years). 

"Come Follow Me" sounds good on paper. Teachers rely on the Spirit, with minimal manual, and seek to elicit more discussion, thought, and participation of students in place of "lecture/listen." In reality, all good teachers from all eras intuitively have involved students and have been naturally engaging. I don't think this applies as much to Gospel Doctrine or Gospel Essentials, but one major drawback with the youth is the fact that they have lessons on the same things twice a Sunday, every year. I am a fun, exciting, engaging teacher, but after years of the same cycle, it gets really old for the both teachers and students. Now, the seminary scripture mastery scriptures have been replaced with the 12 "Come Follow Me" doctrines. If, as I've heard, the Church is piloting "Come Follow Me" for adults, too, then look out! Boredom in GD and GE will reach heights hitherto unknown. Even the most insightful, experienced, and engaging of teachers is hard-pressed to teach "The Godhead" or "The Atonement" or "Being Christlike" every Sunday for a whole month. And then next year: second verse, same as the first. 

I applaud the Brethren and the COB bureaucracy for attemtping to address the decline in gospel literacy by "reducing and simplifying" and focusing on basics. Ironically, I think that the result will actually be the accelerating of this decline, despite the good intentions. Just as missionary teaching under "Preach My Gospel" has declined (don't believe me? Go out on splits for teaching appointments ---- granted, there are still outstanding missionaries, too. I'm speaking of overall), I think that gospel and doctrinal literacy will continue to deteriorate under "de-manualized," repetitive lessons. The only antidote, really, is for LDS homes to become more places of intrinsic gospel learning. As less and less gospel learning takes place in our homes, it doesn't matter what program reboots or revamps we undergo. 

I have seen evidence of boredom with 'Come Follow Me.'  When substituting a Sunday school class, the students complained about covering the same topic for 4 weeks and studying the same thing in Sunday school and young men's/young women's. 

 I hope Gospel Doctrine does not change to Topical discussions.  I wish they would use the institute manuals in Sunday School--not dumb us down further.  People are craving more in depth learning not generalized fluff.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

This article addresses this topic and highlights some pitfalls to avoid. "Occasionally, however, we hear of discussions that are open and lively, but at the conclusion there has been little, if any, doctrinal focus or emphasis. In essence, there have been some therapeutic conversations or a sharing of experiences, but little connection to doctrine. I do not think anyone does this intentionally, but sometimes we may lose focus and think that a vigorous discussion, independent of doctrine, equals a successful class. It does not. Discussion is a means, not an end."

This was my thought exactly.

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I have seen evidence of boredom with 'Come Follow Me.'  When substituting a Sunday school class, the students complained about covering the same topic for 4 weeks and studying the same thing in Sunday school and young men's/young women's. 

 I hope Gospel Doctrine does not change to Topical discussions.  I wish they would use the institute manuals in Sunday School--not dumb us down further.  People are craving more in depth learning not generalized fluff.

Church propaganda (lds.org front page stories, church magazines, etc.) continue to portray how great CFM is, how much teachers and students love it, etc. And I wouldn't want them to write negative articles emphasizing bad experiences or struggles, but the propaganda has a "Five-year Plan" feel about it (happy, smiling peasants, just loving everything about it, etc.), for those who have taught it (especially for those who have taught it a long time). 

When I was a stake Sunday School president, I surveyed the Sunday School teachers in the stake about a number of things. Regarding CFM, some loved it and some hated it, but over time, all hated it. One sister in particular was a fierce advocate of it, and insisted that those who don't like it aren't doing it right, haven't caught the spirit of it, etc. A couple of years later, she was burned out on it and yearns for some different principles and topics. 

The said thing is that there are a lot of important specific topics in the old manuals that are now never covered with the youth. The manuals had a lot of really good stories and anecdotes that are now in oblivion due to obscurity (those who know they are there can still find them, but with each passing year the manuals fade into obscurity). Most of the content for CFM via lds.org is video clips of Brethren speaking with dramatizations, and they are brief with cue music because of attention spans. There are a few scriptures and a few suggestions, but not much else. Granted, it's supposed to be de-centralized without a ponderous manual, but I think that it swung too far to the other extreme, and its hyper-focus on 12 "key" doctrines leaves much else unexplored. 

[sheilauk]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

 

 I hope Gospel Doctrine does not change to Topical discussions.  I wish they would use the institute manuals in Sunday School--not dumb us down further.  People are craving more in depth learning not generalized fluff.

Maybe and maybe not. In my stake, we have a monthly study group which uses the institute manuals. We have 10 regular attendees and most that I speak to about it aren't interested in undertaking such study.  And a lot of people I talk to don't want to go beyond the Sunday manuals.  Not every area is the same. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, sheilauk said:

Maybe and maybe not. In my stake, we have a monthly study group which uses the institute manuals. We have 10 regular attendees and most that I speak to about it aren't interested in undertaking such study.  And a lot of people I talk to don't want to go beyond the Sunday manuals.  Not every area is the same. 

You are right, people are not the same.  I like to study.  I've read all the essays which compared to most here would be 'scholarship light.'  Most of my friends do not care to read them or anything controversial.  They do not want to study scholarly papers that look at the scriptures more in depth. Most of my RS class didn't know what the Sadducees and Pharisees believed or how they were different.  I do see people actually perk up in class when they begin learning something new though.  I think they are used to not learning anything more than what they've heard a dozen times before. Maybe a Come Follow Me for adults could include sections with content tailored to a wards knowledge to meet the needs of the class.

[strappinglad]

It is always useful if the teacher knows a bit more about the subject than the students. It is also helpful if the students have a basic background on a topic. My spouse once attended a series of lectures by a knowledgeable institute teacher. She was quite disappointed that a lot of the time was spent with attendees offering their opinions on the topics. She didn't go to hear what often were uninformed opinions. She wanted to hear the ideas/conclusions of someone who had spent considerable time researching topics.

   I was in the education world for over 30 years and lived in a high population of LDS . Teachers were not all that well respected in the LDS community because, well, everybody was a teacher in the Church. People who were not LDS were more amazed that teachers were so patient. They all said they would have been tempted to ring some kids neck on a regular basis. Not that I wasn't severely tried.

  Maybe after the " Presidents " series , the Church could have an " essays " series that covers serious topics in serious ways  Only for older teens and adults of course.

[boblloyd91]

39 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

It is always useful if the teacher knows a bit more about the subject than the students. It is also helpful if the students have a basic background on a topic. My spouse once attended a series of lectures by a knowledgeable institute teacher. She was quite disappointed that a lot of the time was spent with attendees offering their opinions on the topics. She didn't go to hear what often were uninformed opinions. She wanted to hear the ideas/conclusions of someone who had spent considerable time researching topics.

   I was in the education world for over 30 years and lived in a high population of LDS . Teachers were not all that well respected in the LDS community because, well, everybody was a teacher in the Church. People who were not LDS were more amazed that teachers were so patient. They all said they would have been tempted to ring some kids neck on a regular basis. Not that I wasn't severely tried.

  Maybe after the " Presidents " series , the Church could have an " essays " series that covers serious topics in serious ways  Only for older teens and adults of course.

I like that idea, nothing against the Presidents series, I found some benefit from it, but I hope that we can go deeper (not deeper in controversies, just deeper in regards to the curriculum). I think at one point there was a manual written by Nibley. Would like to have manuals like that rather than read out of a collection of quotes and soundbites....