GD Pedagogy

I’m about two years into my current stint as a Gospel Doctrine (GD) teacher. This is my fourth time around that particular merry-go-round. It’s a great calling, even if in the past I have tended to burn out at about the two-year and a half mark (largely from my practice of overprepping). But this time around I’m still feeling good about it, and I’m looking forward to the change in currculum year come January. Anyway, I thought it might be useful to start a discussion here about the practice of teaching GD class.

The Manual

I don’t think it’s any secret that I’m not a big fan of the lesson manual. Not to put too fine a point on it, the manuals suck. (And I know someone who spent eight years on the curriculum writing committee who would share that sentiment, if perhaps not quite so strong a word choice.) This is essentially a problem of correlation and committee writing (just look at the priesthood manuals from the 50s and 60s to see what a Church lesson manual could look like if an individual were allowed to take full responsibility for the project.) So I use the manual to determine the particular reading assignment; I read through it, and occasionally get an idea to use, but in general I craft my own lessons. When I was first called to teaching callings in the Church, the priesthood leaders were very particular to instruct me that the “manual” is in fact the scriptures, and that the focus should be there. That has stuck with me all through the years and I have tried to abide by that counsel. One might ask whether I ever get any grief for not following the manual more closely. I did a couple of years ago. At Christmas time I taught a Christmas lesson (I usually bag the assigned lesson and do something holiday-centric for Easter and Christmas), and then I did an intertestamental period lesson, and then I did my own intro to the NT. So, largely because it was the end of the year, I did three lessons in a row that were totally unrelated to the manual. Someone must have been trying to follow along in a manual and complained. So now I put the lesson number and title on the board for every lesson, and that seems to be enough to make whoever complained happy.

The main problem I have with the manuals is that they are set up like a Catechism. That would be fine if I were teaching a Catholic confirmation class to a group of 13-year olds. But my class consists of educated, experienced adults. So someone reads a scripture: “Jesus wept.” “OK, class, now what does that scripture say that Jesus did on this occasion?” (No response, because the answer is too embarrassingly obvious.) Finally someone says: “Uh…he wept?” “Yes, very good!” Look, if that’s the way they want the class to be taught, they can call someone else. I’m simply not going to ask simplistic reader comprehension questions of my class.

Assumptions about Class Preparation

One issue I have always struggled with is whether or not to assume the class has read the lesson material. Assuming the class is prepared would reward those who actually do prepare in advance, and over time it might inspire those who do not to actually do so. On the other hand, I know full well that almost all of the class comes completely unprepared, and if I’m not teaching, I do the same. So the way I’ve finessed this is that often I will start with an overview of the entire reading, so that we are at least on a semblance of equal footing, and then go on from there.

Lecture v. Discussion

I’ve been through the Teacher Development class three times, and I have read Teaching, No Greater Call (both versions). I know there are a lot of different teaching methods, but generally the holy grail of Church classroom instruction is class discussion. I’m a convert to this point of view, and my classes these days are mostly discussion-based, but it took me a long time to get there. Early on I tended more towards lecture than discussion. A lot of that had to do with my above comment on the manuals; if asking those questions was supposed to be the path to spurring meaningful discussion, I didn’t think it would work and I wasn’t going to do it. What I learned over time is that the quality of the discussion is in great measure a function of the quality of the questions you ask. I was influenced first by Jim F. and then by Julie to see the possibiity in asking genuine, penetrating questions that would spur actual discussion, and not just manual-canned answers. I find that sometimes when I ask a question, and people have that tentative look in their eyes, I have to give them a little speech, telling them that I don’t have a particular response in mind, that I genuinely want to hear what they think about this, and once they figure out I’m not trying to catechize them, the floodgates open. And you can’t imagine the thoughtul responses you can get when you’re not trying to manipulate those responses. I have thoroughly enjoyed the experience, even though once I roll the ball out there I never really know what’s going to happen, but that makes it exciting and keeps things interesting.

Nevertheless, I do still incorporate bits of lecture into my classes. Class discussion is limited by the preparation and knowledge of the class members, and if they are unprepared and not knowledgeable on a particular topic, then a little bit of lecture is justified in my view. Take a lesson on the Psalms; if no one knows how to read a Psalm, you’re not going to be able to tease that information out of the class via discussion. And it is critical in studying the Psalms to know how to approach them. So I don’t apologize for occassionally shifting into lecture mode.

Some Practical Tips

1. I like to print out the reading assignment so that I can mark the heck out of it.

2. This BoM year, once I print out the reading I manually insert Grant Hardy’s in-text captions. (To me the chapter headnotes are largely useless.)

3. I also print out Julie’s notes so I can look at them easily while I’m commuting by train. I don’t usually get through all of them, and I’ve gotten better at coming up with meaningful questions of my own. But she has a genuine talent for question composition, and I do like to check her thoughts on the material.

4. I like to start with an icebreaker. At first I tried to do a “what happened in your family” kind of moment like in Primary. That didn’t work. So now I’ll typically talk about current developments in the Mo-world. This Sunday I imagine we’ll talk a bit about the new sister missionary age policy. I might mention the blogging on 3 Nephi by Father Clooney at Harvard. Maybe I’ll mention the new Mormon Studies Chair at UVA. Just something to break the ice and get people thinking and talking a little bit to grease the skids for the lesson itself.

5. I have a personal practice of never putting anyone on the spot. I’ve known too many people who were deathly afraid of being called on, and I want them to feel safe in my class. This is not a problem, because there is plenty of volunteer participation without me having to call on someone who hasn’t volunteered.

6. If someone gives a response that’s a little off, I try mightily to massage it and find the good in it. I’ll often restate the answer in such a way as to gently remove an infelicity. People don’t seem to mind, or even notice if I’m careful and gentle enough.

7. I basically have two goals at the end of the day. I try to model enthusiasm for the scriptures and for learning, to give people the idea that this is fun and exciting stuff. And I also try to intrigue them enough by the lesson to spur them to actually crack the scriptures open when they get home and maybe read the material that we didn’t get to.

OK, that’s some of my theory and practice as to the art of teaching GD. Share with us some of your tips and theories, and maybe we can learn from one another how to become better at our craft.

Comments

  1. So basically this tells me that I need to find some time and opportunity to head out across Lake Michigan and visit Kevin in his ward and see this magic in action. ;-)

    I’m always intrigued when it comes to people teaching from the manuals, and I second your notion that they desperately need some help. I think there are many many good-willed GD teachers that do want to teach good lessons, but either don’t know where to begin (and rely soley on the manuals) or hear the statements of “Everything you need is in the manuals” and we resort back to the catechism that you described. Other than the instance you described, have you ever had others out there who challenged you on not following the manual or perhaps heading off the correlated track? Especially in instances where alternative bible translations or other “additional” insights really help adding to the dsicussion

  2. “Lecture v. Discussion”

    I think there is another difference in most teaching methods, Devotional vs. Intellectual. While a lesson can certainly be both, there is usually some friction among the class with expectations. Those class members hoping for a devotional approach usually see the intellectual approach and missing the mark and vice versa.

  3. Mephibosheth says:

    Fantastic. I have come to many of the same conclusions over the years.

    The ice-breaker is a great idea, and I’m going to start using that instead of what I usually do, which is to begin class by giving a 2-3 minute mini-talk. I’m a better lecturer than I am a teacher, and so this 1) signals to the class that I have prepared, as opposed to the teacher that begins by cracking open the manual and asking for a volunteer to read (which signals to the class that it’s time to go to sleep). And 2) I found this gets them thinking about the topic which increases participation in the discussion. I’ve found that discussions are better too. I could lecture the whole time, but then that’s a wasted opportunity to learn from each other and about each other.

  4. J. Stapley says:

    Yep. Ask the hard questions. The scriptures are chock full of difficult ideas, conflicts and tensions. It is okay to talk about it. Even simple questions like “do we believe that?” can open of really great conversations. Solid outline, Kevin.

  5. Kevin Barney says:

    brandt, that’s the only time I can recall anyone making a fuss about me not following the manual slavishly. When I’m in the Bible classes, I bring in lots of insights from the biblical languages, and people seem to genuinely enjoy and appreciate that.

    Tim J, another good axis to think about. I suppose I try to do both, but overall my approach trends toward the intellectual and academic. A lot of people reallly enjoy that, while others do not. I suspect there are some folks that hang out in Gospel Essentials for that reason. But there isn’t a large crowd hanging out in the hallways, and I admit I do take a little bit of pride in that accomplishment. (grin)

    I do recall one other complaint about my teaching. This was my first time as a GD teacher. Someone complained that I was not spiritual enough. I knew who it was; this was a person who would clasp his hands in front of him, speak in a soft voice, tears would come to his eyes, but then what came out of his mouth was all kinds of crazy. To me his “spirituality” was manufactured and not a genuine gift of the Spirit. The SP, for whom I worked at the time, asked me about it, and I freely acknowledged that I don’t try to emotionally manipulate my class, but that my theory is that the Spirit testifies of truth, so I concentrate on teaching that which is true. He was satisfied with that and that was the last I ever heard about it.

  6. The emotional manipulation is interesting. I had a GD teacher that would pretty much cry in the middle of every lesson. He obviously leaned more towards the devotional approach. While most of the class commented on how spiritual his classes were, I couldn’t help but feel how empty they were. I learned nothing.

    I have to hope that after updating the Youth manuals, GD is next. I’m also encouraged by how little structure is given to the new Youth manuals and hope for the same for GD.

  7. Kevin Barney says:

    After my mish, I was in the same married student ward with Blake Ostler (and John Sorneson was our HC rep). I taught EQ and Blake taught GD. As you no doubt know, he was a philosophy major, and he taught using socratic method, something I haven’t seen before or since. To me those were fantastic lessons, and I think they would play well in a university ward dominated by grad students. But I can’t quite fathom how they would go over in a regular family ward. Our people aren’t prepared for questioning on that level; the whole class would probably lose its faith within a couple of months. Which is a shame, because that kind of intensive questioning that actually puts your faith at risk has the potential to take your faith to new and considerable heights as well.

  8. Great list Kevin.

    When I taught GD I would assume that the audience read the assigned reading in the past but not recently. This turned out to be generally true. But also it meant I would frame questions differently. I would say “you probably remember…” or something. Then people would say to themselves, “Oh, yeah, I do remember that not that you say it,” and not feel like I was treating them as ignorant.

    Another thing was to have build to tough discussion. I find most people like the tough discussion but only when they are ready or feel prepared to participate in it. Tough questions out of the blue are usually not taken well. So you build up with simpler, easier questions. And then I’d always want to end the lesson on a strong devotional note.

  9. Kevin Barney says:

    Great ideas, Mike M.

  10. “Ask the hard questions.” One difficulty with this I’ve seen is the first response is often of the shallow but self-assured kind that seems to solve the issue to the satisfaction of most of the class. Often times, people don’t naturally see the hard questions, so they have to be set up before asking.

  11. I try to ask the hard questions and with a certain kind of student those can be rewarding. But after teaching GD off and on for more than 30 years I notice more and more the student who honestly believes there are no hard questions, that everything is easily answered by a quote or a scripture. There seems to be a growing difficulty even acknowledging that there are hard questions to be asked.

  12. Ask hard questions with multiple potential answers. If you get a shallow answer, find the good in it, repeat it, and then ask the class for some more answers.

    Don’t take the easy answer and move on. Dig into it. “Is there another way to interpret that scripture?” “What about this other scripture…” etc. Don’t let the class get away with not struggling with the question.

    I’ve been in four different wards in the past 18 months (moved twice, ward boundaries changed once). I’ve noticed each time I teach a group of adults I have to train them to actually get involved in the class I teach (typically EQ). At first, people are reluctant to speak up. Perhaps they think I’m asking for a specific answer when I’m not. So there’s awkward silence in the room for a few seconds until someone nervously speaks up. I try to find something good to say about every comment to encourage the comments. After a week or two of this, the awkward silence disappears, and the adults have no problem getting involved in the class discussion. Sure, some of the answers still aren’t that great, but many of them are excellent.

    Besides, I find it much easier to think up a number of good questions to ask than to plan a 35 minute lesson/talk. I go over the manual and scriptures, come up with a brief outline accompanied by a handful of good questions, and I’m good to go. The class does most the talking and I just control the outline of the discussion.

  13. I read in a book on public speaking, that if you make your audience laugh at the beginning of a talk, then they are put at ease and more receptive to anything else you have to say. It appears that your LDS news moments may have the same effect and seem a better alternative than having to always come up with a lame joke. I’ll have to steal that one.

    “I know full well that almost all of the class comes completely unprepared, and if I’m not teaching, I do the same.” Thanks for your candor Kevin! Me too….

    I remember a GD class where the discussion was on the 12th article of faith and then class members began sharing stories of saints going against their government and holding clandestine LDS meetings before the church was formally recognized. The GD teacher admitted he didn’t know how to reconcile the two. It was refreshing and once he admitted he didn’t know, it made it easier for the rest of us to talk freely about all topics and we could end with an ‘I don’t know’ that didn’t feel like a cop-out.

    There is such a fine line between lecturing and pontificating. I wish all teachers could be as adept at knowing where the line is as you appear to be. I vote for the interesting discussions over the smarmy ‘spiritual’ sobbing any day. Thanks for your tips!

  14. Some students need more time to assimilate information, and prepare their remarks. I like to avoid the trained seal responses by spicing up the “scripture slips” one doles out before class: 1) assign a longer passage, with the instruction to “please take one minute to summarize these verses in your own words”, or 2) “read XX:XX, and afterwards please offer a brief response, comment, or personal experience”.

  15. I have not yet taught GD but have had some great teachers in my ward over the years. We have a very good one right now who will stop and ask trivia questions about the material or the ward or the church as they arise and then throws candy bars to the person who gets the right answer. That’s not the only reason he’s good, but that little strategy keeps you on your toes and paying attention.

    I want to be in Kevin’s GD class someday. Barring that, I want to just be Kevin someday.

  16. Kevin, It’s 1:35 am and I’m on my insomnia break, so forgive any incoherence. I am close to your approach but with a few differences. My background is BA and MA in philosophy with four years of Greek and Latin and then law school, so I am at home with a soft socratic style (soft because we are talking about a GD class and not a graduate seminar). I stick with the subject matter of the lesson but do not feel obligated to follow the particular order or suggested questions and answers, but with you, I like to deep research and think through the scriptures and historical context of the lesson so as to try to be maximally prepared, which I thoroughly enjoy but which can become a time burden. But when I reach the point of outlining my lesson, I try to follow the spirit of Lowell Bennion’s advice of first trying to organize one’s lesson around one or two specific objectives (eg, understanding just what faith is, distinguishing it from mere belief and knowledge)( see The Best of Lowell Bennion – Selected Writings) and then crafting a discussion around those questions with a careful look at the relevant scriptures, and second remembering that I am teaching people and not a lesson. With adults I have rarely had a problem generating fruitful discussion, perhaps because I am willing to share my own puzzlement over the questions involved and perhaps because I try to make each class member feel that their opinions matter to me and praise them for their willingness to share and their insights. I will often ask questions of the class based on the comments or questions of a class member in search of further clarity. And most important, I am in the meantime trying to live as close to the Savior as I can and earnestly pray for his spiritual guidance as I prepare a lesson, with the result that, as I am sure you have experienced, I often deviate from my own outline and go on autopilot with the Spirit, with the added result that the discussion often helps individual members with their particular life concerns and questions. I mean, the ultimate point in all of our teaching is to help one another draw and live closer to the Father and the Son and live a more Spirit led and loving life. Merely passing on information can be interesting and I love learning new things and gaining new insights about scripture and the gospel, but building faith and love and spiritual moments are I believe the most important things. So these are my droopy eyed thoughts. I love you, Kev. Keep up the good work.

  17. You are awesome, Kevin.

    E., “trained seal responses,” HA!

  18. I taught GD in my small Colorado ward years ago, thru the OT, NT and BoM. Most members NEVER read the assignment and I figured that out qiuckly. No matter that I LOVED the scriptures and bore my testimony, etc. nothing worked so I expected it. Because I’m a historian and a writer and a feminist and a speaker. I studied the historical background for each lesson from a variety of sources, rarely LDS. And I worked hard to find the women in the scriptures. I also asked lots of thoughtful question with contemporary application. Did NOT like the questions in the manual – too simplistic, b & w, easy for someone to give rote answer. I asked to be released because I was returning to school and starting a new job. I’ve taught in every aux. in the church and enjoy public speaking. I am/was VERY GOOD as a teacher and people often told me how much I brought the scriptures to life. A few months after being released, my nomo husband told the miss. he did not want to be baptized, my x married in the temple and still lives in my ward and I’ve slowly become a non-entity in my ward. I rarely attend. When I do, GD classs are painful, mostly becasue the teachers are so awful. And if I do make a thoughtful, altho often contrarian yet enlightening comment, I am either shot down by someone more righteous or glossed over. Hmmm…. As a GD teacher I welcomed discussion, believing that is the way we learn, by sharing ideas and insights. If I had an unruly member, I simply said we are moving on and we did. Sad that I’m no longer a teacher at church but I produce local history programs so I still get to teach. I’m in my late 50s and cantruthfully say I’ve had few good GD teachers.

  19. Kevin Barney says:

    Thanks for the thoughts, all.

    Another thing I do is I regularly “steal” other people’s ideas and techniques. I apply a sort of golden rule; if something works for me as a student, then I figure it will work for other students, and I try to incorporate that practice into my own teaching..

  20. Chris Kimball says:

    Four thoughts:
    1. I’d like your class, Kevin.
    2. In my experience, almost nobody reads the manual in advance, although some will try to follow along in class. But if you think of the “assignment” as chapters and verses in the relevant book of scripture, some people will read in advance on their own initiative, most (adults, anyway) will know or remember enough to engage in a discussion even if they haven’t read that section in preparation for the class, and if the class consistently refers to the scriptures–more specifically, refers to the scriptures as text–then more and more will read.
    3. When I taught GD (through a full 4-year cycle) we had two classes running simultaneously. One followed the manual mostly as lecture (so I heard) and mine followed the text of the scriptures with questions. Allowing people to choose greatly alleviated concerns about following the manual (in some minds) and about radical teaching by asking questions (in other minds). Highly recommended.
    4. Perhaps my own idiosyncracy (although I could quote Paul and suggest I’m in good company), but I looked for and almost always found a way in which the scriptures assigned for the day testified of or spoke of Christ. I like to think that drawing that bit out was appreciated by others. It certainly meant a lot to me.

  21. I agree that there has to be a good mix of lecture vs discussion. All discussion is usually a bad thing because you end up with too many crazy comments and the discussion gets off track. Some lecture is essential, both for keeping focus and providing food for thought.

  22. For me, there is one part of the manual lessons that I always find valuable: the Purpose statement. (Well, at least I have ever since an excellent teacher development teacher taught me of its importance. I don’t know if there’s any connection, but his father worked as a Church curriculum writer.)

    I would wager that this Purpose statement might be the most generally neglected segment of every lesson, even though it is put right up front. However, I have found that having a clear sense of purpose can make all the difference in developing an effective lesson. Using the statement as a guiding principle, I can seek my own revelation in figuring out how to best help my class meet that purpose. The rest of the lesson outline is available as a resource, of course, but the purpose is the guiding star. As long as we make progress towards it, we accomplish good, even though our classes and wards may be coming toward the goal from quite different directions. With such a focused goal, I don’t need to worry about whether I cover everything or whether I march in lockstep with the manual. During the lesson, I can flexibly adapt to class needs without worrying that I am getting off-track of some plan. The concern of real importance is whether class members “develop a greater desire to come to Christ,” or “strengthen their testimony of Sabbath day observance,” or whatever the week’s stated purpose may be.

  23. I am curious how GD teachers are handling political comments in class during the election season. Since I am still recovering from surgery this summer, all I get are reports and the emails sent out by ward leaders reminding everyone that church is church, mutual is church, primary is church, priesthood and RS is church, and church means no politics.

    Apparently our ward isn’t too bad, although I still think it is funny a post on my blog about the subject is a favorite of seminary students in the area. Lol.

    So, how much is it coming up, and which ways work and don’t work?

  24. Kevin Barney says:

    Quite honestly, I can’t think of any political comments arising in my class, and only very rarely in my ward generally. For which I’m thankful.

  25. I really like Tim’s comment (12) about questions. I would add a caution to avoid questions where an honest, but unexpected answer would completely derail the point you’re trying to make. For instance, on my mission, I found that a common rookie mistake was to ask investigators whom we didn’t know well questions like, “Do you love your family? Would you like to be with them forever?” As often as not, the answer was no.

    My favorite questions are those where an honest, unexpected answer was productive towards an open discussion that many class-members can learn from. Maybe that’s less about the question itself and more about creating a safe classroom environment where people know that you aren’t looking for the right answer. I think one way to do that is to celebrate and validate every response. I know as a class-member, I sometimes get discouraged when I answer a question and the teacher responds with “Ummm… Anyone else?”

  26. Kevin Barney says:

    Carole, great thoughts!

    My class today went really, really well. There were some fantastic insights expressed–by the students, not me. And I think that is largely because over time I’ve endeavored to create the environment you describe.

    Your comment reminds me of a seminary teacher we had in our youth. She would grasp the manual so tight her knuckles would turn white. She would ask a question, someone would give a very thoughtful answer, and she would (almost with a touch of glee) say “No,” and give whatever the manual suggested answer was. Drove me nuts; “Didn’t she actually listen to what the student said?” I would wonder.

  27. Carole #25 I have to disagree with one thing you said.
    “I would add a caution to avoid questions where an honest, but unexpected answer would completely derail the point you’re trying to make. For instance, on my mission, I found that a common rookie mistake was to ask investigators whom we didn’t know well questions like, “Do you love your family? Would you like to be with them forever?” As often as not, the answer was no.”

    I think asking that question is only a mistake if you don’t understand the Atonement, and what it means to mourn with those that mourn. A lesson should never be considered to be derailed when a class has the chance to share how the Atonement has worked in their lives, either to help tham accept the scars of an abusive or absent familiy, or to share stories of how we apply the ideals of the gospel to less ideal situations.

    One of the best Sunday School lessons I was in got “derails” within the first ten minutes. The topic was the hearts of the fathers turning to the children, and the hearts fo the children turning to their fathers. One of the brothers, who was a newish convert, asked what to do if you didn’t want to be sealed to your family. The rest of the class was taken up with the teacher and class members explaining the Atonement and that it isn’t just for forgiving us of our sins. One of the stake presidency members was in the class that Sunday, and he shared an eternal perspective for forgiveness as a process, and not as an end point. There were several people who talked about Job, and his challenges, and others who talked about the Utah pioneers, who often times were chased out by their neighbors, but who also had family members turn their backs on them.

    I was quiet throughout the lesson, but a small chink in the protective armor around my heart was made that day, when I realized that the Atonement and mourning with those that mourn could apply to someone who hated her father because he stole my childhood, my innocence and my self esteem. It was only a beginning, and I am still only a little ways down the path that I know will stretch on well after this life. I am eternally grateful for the Sunday School teacher who let his “well prepared lesson plan” and let the class discussionm get hijacked by the Holy Ghost and a brother who was truly struggling. I know I am not the only class member who the lesson had a profound impact on, and whose testimony and hope were renewed.

  28. Carole–I’m not a big fan of yes or no questions. That being said, part of being an effective teacher is knowing when to bring a derailed lesson back to what you have planned and when to follow it a bit. Sometimes those derailed lessons can be much more productive than the planned lessons were.

    Derailed discussions can eat up the time meant for the rest of the lesson, but I think the best teachers worry more about having a good, productive discussion than covering every point on their plan.

    I think that was part of the problem with the old six missionary discussions–instead of spending the time we needed on an issue like the existence of God with an open agnostic/atheist or the issue of chastity with an interested but promiscuous young adult, we were taught to cram those points into a discussion that included quite a few other points. The best missionaries taught to the individual, even if it meant not being able to report another 1st or 4th discussion.

  29. Excellent, Kevin. I want to bookmark this post in case I ever get called to teach in church again.

  30. Kevin, I tried your “current events” opener today, briefly discussing the missionary age change, the “Treasures of the Collection” exhibit (which only two class members had even heard of, despite our chapel being about a quarter mile from the Church History Library), and the UVa Mormon Studies chair. I planned ways to refer back to all three matters during our lesson (#36) — but I didn’t have to! In each case, class members brought them up, without my doing a single thing to prod them. Tying the “Treasures” exhibit to 3 Nephi 1:2, where Nephi, son of Helaman, passed “those things which had been kept sacred” to his son, and had a great discussion springing from that. Thanks for the idea.

  31. Kevin Barney says:

    I’m glad it worked for you Ardis. My class was very animated and invested during that initial segment yesterday, and that seemed to carry over through the entire class for me as well.

  32. Great ideas, Kevin, and lots of great suggestions in the thread. In a ward I lived in once, the GD teacher did a variation on your “current events” opener, where he would talk briefly about something that had happened to him during the week, or sometime in the past, and relate it to the lesson. I thought it was a very successful strategy. But then, he was a good teacher all the way around.

    I echo everyone else who wants to try attending your class at least once or twice. Surely I can find some excuse for coming to Chicago! :)

  33. Central Standard says:

    I was in Kevin’s class this past Sunday. Interesting, great comments and moving.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,514 other followers