Here is an interesting thought that I found as I was studying in the teacher manual. I was looking at the sentence, "Fundamentals from Preach My gospel--Teaching More Effectively: Eight areas of focus that have been identified as a foundation for helping missionaries become better teachers." (p. 3). I thought that it went really well with D&C 43:15-16 "Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit; And ye are to be taught from on high. Sanctify yourselves and yes shall be endowed with power, that ye may give even as I have spoken." I thought to myself, "am I teaching in such a way that enables the missionaries to build a foundation of learning through their experiences with the curriculum?" Then I thought to myself, "what does that even mean?" Here's the encyclopedia edition:
foundation, Part of a structural system that supports and anchors the superstructure of a building and transmits its loads directly to the earth. To prevent damage from repeated freeze-thaw cycles, the bottom of the foundation must be below the frost line. The foundations of low-rise residential buildings are nearly all supported on spread footings, wide bases (usually of concrete) that support walls or piersand distribute the load over a greater area. A concrete grade beam supported by isolated footings, piers, or piles may be placed at ground level, especially in a building without a basement, to support the exterior wall. Spread footings are also used—in greatly enlarged form—for high-rise buildings. Other systems for supporting heavy loads include piles, concrete caisson columns, and building directly on exposed rock. In yielding soil, a floating foundation—consisting of rigid, boxlike structures set at such a depth that the weight of the soil removed to place it equals the weight of the construction supported—may be used. (Encyclopedia Britanica).
I realized how important it is for us as teachers to teach in such a way that the missionaries build a foundation of learning centered on interactions with the Godhead. I also realized that we need to help them go deep enough in their learning to that they are below the spiritual frost line. Who would have thought that construction could teach so much about the gospel?! (besides Krys Gardner that is).
Another sentence that stood out to me: "As you understand what the activities are and how they fit together you will be able to guide the missionaries in their efforts to become better teachers" (p. 4).There is significant importance in having a correct understanding of our roles as teachers and of the missionaries roles. Sometimes I feel like we have the mindset that we are responsible for making the missionaries better teachers. Instead, we should be focused on guiding them in their efforts to become better. Extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation. Good ol' Drive teaching gospel truths. Thank you Mr. Pink!
Dan-
ReplyDeleteI wanted to build off your final paragraph. As I've thought about our role as teachers as a guide to missionaries in THEIR efforts, coupled with last week's training about helping our missionaries to be agents unto themselves, I've come to an interesting "conundrum."
If our role as teachers is, as the TED Talk mentioned, to be the farmers that till the land and prepare the soil such that our missionaries can flourish for themselves, must we then be comfortable with the reality that not all missionaries will flourish/grow? A farmer recognizes that not everyone of his planted seeds will grown and yield fruit. In fact, any additional-- or unnatural-- attempt on his part to force the meek plant to do so might ultimately destroy it.
This is the nature, as Elder Callister put it, of the "arena of heightened risk" in which we live. Not all will necessarily thrive and grow and "reach" the mark. Our Heavenly Father understood, in sending us to the Earth, that not all of us would return to his presence as glorified beings. Some of us would fall short. Do we need to accept a similar truth in the context of the MTC? Do we need to accept that not all missionaries will reach a certain standard-- beit because of a lack of learning abilities, a lack of experience within the context of the gospel, or a lack of desire?
I think a lot of us recognized within ourselves a certain "fast food" or "industrial" model of teaching that sets a very specific standard which we have become very talented at getting our missionaries to. However, we can recognize that so doing is often the result of compulsion (Zone Resources monitoring Companion Studies, teachers giving very specific reading assignments, missionaries being "trained" in practices rather than being coached, etc). Such compulsion might artificially raise the lowest missionary (force a tender plant to yield fruit), but at what long term cost? Moreover, though the lowest missionary is raised, how much damage is done and how much of a cap is placed on the missionaries that are ready and willing to flourish?
I'm still piecing together all my thoughts on the subject, but I'm curious to hear other teachers' opinions. I recognize that, unlike God (who lost a third part), we are dealing with a very elect group. As such, the overwhelming majority of the missionaries will intrinsically possess the desires to improve. I also recognize that they have been blessed with the missionary mantle that will both magnify their natural strengths and minimize their natural weaknesses.
Any thoughts?