[Part 4 in a series about improving gospel teaching. Previous entries in the series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3]

Continuing the discussion of principles that define good teachers…

Good teachers recognize that teacher/student is not an equal relationship: Above and beyond credibility, teachers need confidence. Some teachers act embarrassed to be called as a teacher and phrase their lessons as if they were apologies (“I don’t really know the gospel better than any of you, but they gave me this calling for some reason, so I’ll try not to embarrass anyone…”) Good teachers understand that inside the classroom, they are the boss, even if the class is filled with members older and more knowledgeable than them (or friends and family members who know them very well).

Inside the classroom, the teacher is fundamentally ‘better’ than everyone else. Why? Because in the forms of teaching we’re discussing, teachers are teaching because they’ve been called and set apart to teach–that means regardless of the teacher’s relationship to his/her students outside the classroom, the teacher and only the teacher has been given the authority and God-given responsibility to teach those students.

I believe the vast majority of students–including teenagers–come to class wanting the teacher to act like a teacher. No one wants to come to class every week and leave without learning anything–they want to hear a good lesson and feel uplifted. Frequently, YM/YW teachers in particular try to be ‘one of they guys (or girls)” first, and hope to sneak in some gospel teaching when the students aren’t looking. Teachers do their students a disservice by not embracing their role as teachers–rather than trying to be the students’ “best friend”–and teaching with confidence and boldness. Because, after all, “whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies”–which means a teacher, once called, is entitled to the blessings and assistance of the Spirit when teaching.

In short, teachers should teach as if they have some real authority behind them–because they do–and teach with confidence, as if the things they are teaching are really important and worthy of the students’ time–because they are…

Good teachers understand who they are teaching: One of my first callings after my mission was as the priests’ quorum teacher of my BYU student ward. One of my first lessons was on priesthood authority, and as part of my lesson plan, I included a section discussing the part in Mosiah where Alma (the Elder) appears to receive priesthood authority out of nowhere when baptizing. I had read recently one of Joseph Fielding Smith’s “Answers to Gospel Questions” series which had discussed the answer to this ‘problem’ (Alma already had the priesthood from his father, through the line of legitimate Nephite priests).

During the lesson, I enthusiastically asked my students as a lead-in to this section, “How many of you have ever wondered where Alma got his priesthood in Mosiah?” Dead silence…some confused looks.

Whoops! I pressed forward…although it was obvious at that moment that this had been a bad idea. After realizing my mistake, I went on quickly to another part of the lesson–something more reasonable.

I had made a fundamental teaching mistake–I did not understand who I was teaching. This was the priests quorum of a college student ward. Why would college-age guys be priests, when they’re ‘elder’ age? Well, usually this is either because they are brand new members or often lapsed members who weren’t really active in high school, thus never completed the official transition into elderhood.

Meaning: my class needed to be on a “Gospel Principles” level, not a “Gospel Doctrine” level. It’s entirely possible some of them hadn’t ever read the entire book of Mosiah before in their lives, let alone spent time wondering about where Alma got his priesthood. I was presenting a ‘niche’ topic–something that I personally had found interesting–but had failed to aim my lesson at the proper level for the audience, with more basic and general principles. (Frankly, even at a “Gospel Doctrine” level, the relevance of my anecdote is debatable. Beware the ‘niche’ topic…)

Many teachers (and this includes secular teachers–college professors, even…) end up giving ‘poor’ lessons not because they don’t have enthusiasm, or sincerity, or the requisite knowledge and understanding of the material, but because they fail to make a connection to the students. They fail to discuss the material on the students’ level, in terms that they can understand and respond to. In most cases, it is the teachers’ responsibility to adjust to their students learning needs, not the other way around.

Good teachers will plan and adjust their lessons based on who they are teaching. Teaching a lesson about ‘temples’ to a Primary class versus a lesson on ‘temples’ to a high priests’ group will almost certainly be very different. Lessons will be fundamentally different in tone and execution when taught to a Sunday School class in a family ward, versus a single student ward, versus a young married ward, versus just guys in Elder’s Quorum, versus sisters in Relief Society versus Young Men or Young Women. Since in many cases, the lesson manual is exactly the same in many of these situations, it then becomes the teacher’s responsibility to adjust the lesson material to the target audience appropriately (again, not being a ‘slave’ to the manual). Good teachers, when planning, will ponder both the lesson material AND who the students are–what their stage in life is, and their background in the gospel–which will affect which scriptures are emphasized, which stories are shared, and which examples are used to reinforce gospel principles.

The Problem: If you look over the items listed under the ‘good’ section in both today’s article and Part 3, you might notice that these generally aren’t things a teacher can just ‘decide’ to do better. The ‘adequate’ list contains simple ‘Do’s’ and “Don’ts” that teachers can keep in mind before and during the lesson, but the ‘good’ list consists of many things that only differ from things adequate teachers already do in quality. Good teachers manage classroom time effectively, they manage student discussion effectively, they prepare their lessons well but can alter them on the fly effectively, etc… But…how DO you manage time ‘effectively’, how do you know when discussion needs to continue, and when it needs to stop?

This is the problem: Describing the ‘how’ is almost impossible, because each lesson and each group of students will be completely different. No teacher can ever really know how the following class is going to play out. No teacher knows ahead of time what the students’ response to asked questions will be. A teacher’s prior preparation can only go so far–at some point, part of successful teaching is learning how to manage the unexpected, handling things as they come once class progresses. A teacher is far more likely, AFTER the fact, to realize “I didn’t manage time effectively today” even though, of course, he/she didn’t START the day planning not to manage time effectively during the lesson.

And this is the point: The majority of improvements in gospel teaching take place AFTER class, not before. Many of the skills outlined in this article may only come through experience for some teachers, but even then, experience only helps if the teacher is consciously trying to learn from it. Teachers can improve over time…if they want to. Improvement happens only if they are willing to honestly and critically analyze their lessons and decide for themselves what worked and what didn’t, and what specifically to do better next time.

The problem with giving honest ‘feedback’ in the Church today is that most Church members don’t feel comfortable doing it. They don’t feel they have ‘standing’, and don’t want to offend anyone. (And those that ARE bold enough to give honest feedback frequently don’t know how to do it tactfully). Many members will simply go up and tell the teacher “Good lesson!” after class, regardless of the actual quality of the lesson.

Even those where feedback is part of their calling (like me) have a difficult time figuring out how to phrase things appropriately–no one wants to make the teacher feel insulted, or even defensive about their lesson. I frequently only have five minutes or so to talk with a teacher after class, anyway, meaning there’s not enough time for even an ‘honest’ feedback session to go over very many things.

This is why the majority of teaching improvement must come from teachers giving themselves ‘feedback’ sessions. Teachers that want to improve will need to critically ask themselves specific questions about their lesson: what section of the lesson worked and which needed improvement. And why? Which questions did I ask (if any…) that elicited positive responses from the students, and which didn’t? And why? What would I do differently if I had to teach the lesson over again? Once the previous lesson has been analyzed, preparation for the next lesson can begin with a firmer foundation of experience and wisdom. (Because of this very principle, our feedback sessions with teachers have been directed towards letting the teachers ‘feedback’ themselves)

There are times when someone on the outside can make a cogent observation that will provide great insight to teachers–but usually, when a teacher improves in skill, it is because they have instinctively felt which lessons (and parts of lessons) worked and which didn’t, and analyze themselves how to make the former more common than the latter.

Next: How to be Great…