I'm now the instructor in elders quorum

[BlueK]

and I'm already stumped. What is the instructor expected to do with the manual we currently use? The recently released elders quorum pres when he would teach from the manual would basically have everyone take turns reading it during the meeting, and that was about it. In my younger days I was taught that was bad technique for teaching in church, but that's more or less how the manual seems to be set up to do now. Any suggestions? I like the stuff that is in there, but is there any leeway for expounding on it? I was more or less told that the last instructor was "fired" for venturing too far off what was in the manual. Granted, he didn't do a very good job of sticking to the subject.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by BlueK

and I'm already stumped. What is the instructor expected to do with the manual we currently use? The recently released elders quorum pres when he would teach from the manual would basically have everyone take turns reading it during the meeting, and that was about it. Somehow that doesn't seem to fit my vision of what a lesson should be, but that's more or less how the manual seems to be set up to do. Any suggestions? I like the stuff that is in there, but is there any leeway for expounding on it? I was more or less told that the last instructor was "fired" for venturing too far off what was in the manual.

I don't think the intent is to cover all the material. Pick one or two points and spend the whole time discussing. depth over breadth.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Brian

I don't think the intent is to cover all the material. Pick one or two points and spend the whole time discussing. depth over breadth.

That's a very good method.

I've taught EQ for the past few years and I've found there are a couple of effective ways to use the manual. One is what Brian said. Read the lesson well and highlight three or four portions that you really like. Have a volunteer read the portions and then ask questions based on the quotes. The questions usually spur some interesting discussion.

Another method is to look at the four or five sections contained in the manual to create an outline. Write the section headers on the chalkboard and then read a quote or two per section and ask questions and discuss as you go along. This method has helped me find a decent direction as I teach.

In my opinion, it's important to read the lesson at least four or five times before you teach. Make sure you have a firm grasp of what each quote is saying so you can lead discussion back to the manual when appropriate. You may have a quorum member bring up an interesting discussion point and if you know the lesson well, you can often find a quote that helps enhance the discussion.

I've also found that I rarely use the introductions. They're usually anectdotes that don't lend well to good questions or discussion. Occassionally there is some interesting material in the intro, but don't feel pressured to use them.

One last thing. I often try to bring up an interesting historical fact about the prophet we're discussing. I think one of the reasons we're using the Latter-day Prophet series is to gain an appreciation for these men whose time has passed and I try to encourage learning about them.

Good luck. It's a great calling.

[YOhio]

Another thing I like to do is build a good rapport with the class by chatting for a minute or two about the previous days sports news.

I especially like to give the Buckeye fans a little grief, but it has been hard to do the past couple of years. After they lost to Texas in 2005 I used the Longhorn hand signal whenever I called on somebody. After they lost to Florida both times this year I did the Gator chop instead of pointing.

[BYUruss]

Let people sleep through instruction if needed.

[All-American]

Best calling in the church is EQ instructor. You get to take the lesson at your preferred pace, and take the rest of the quorum along with you for the ride.

My best advice: ask early and often this all-too often overlooked question: "So what?" Nothing will make a lesson more interesting, involve more people, and accelerate learning quite like relevance. So God the Father and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. Why does that matter? So it shows that we know what God is like and everybody else is wrong. What's so great about that? So we're not supposed to smoke or drink coffee, tea, or alcohol. Why not? Usually, I can get two or three layers beyond the usual extent of a typical lesson by inquiring as to the relevance of the material, and often, we learn not only why what we know is important, but that we didn't know everything we thought we once did.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

My mantra was never ask a question whose answer is "faith, God, repentance, charity, yes, no, scriptures, or go to church." It is amazing how many questions get asked with one of those predictable answers. I think asking questions with obvious answers discourages thought and participation in a lesson.

You are oh so correct, but I think you forgot "Jesus." My children have all of these down pat and start going through the list when asked questions in FHE. Ingrates.

[Archaea]

Why do we call the "instructor" an instructor when we only desire a "discussion leader"?

In a traditional sense, an instructor has more information on a subject. Whenever I was DL, I found I did not have the most information.

In High Priest, one doesn't even need to look at the manuals for discussion to ensue.

I suppose my little beef about it, is the DL method assumes that such DL is a gifted practitioner of the Socratic method. I suspect most are not. Most of my law professors, who should be more acquainted with it, were not good at it.

The Socratic method also assumes the students have prepared prior to coming to class, which we know, usually involves about three persons, HP Group Leader, DL and the mister know-it-all in the corner.

What is the solution to this ever common problem?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

You are oh so correct, but I think you forgot "Jesus." My children have all of these down pat and start going through the list when asked questions in FHE. Ingrates.

lol! Hopefully some Southern manners will do 'em some good. Clean the French off.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why do we call the "instructor" an instructor when we only desire a "discussion leader"?

In a traditional sense, an instructor has more information on a subject. Whenever I was DL, I found I did not have the most information.

In High Priest, one doesn't even need to look at the manuals for discussion to ensue.

I suppose my little beef about it, is the DL method assumes that such DL is a gifted practitioner of the Socratic method. I suspect most are not. Most of my law professors, who should be more acquainted with it, were not good at it.

The Socratic method also assumes the students have prepared prior to coming to class, which we know, usually involves about three persons, HP Group Leader, DL and the mister know-it-all in the corner.

What is the solution to this ever common problem?

students will never be prepared.
Lead a discussion is the probably the best alternative.