How to plan a lesson, and other talks to Sunday-school teachers

Front matter

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

Preface

"7 The ideas presented in the following pages are

Q based upon both a theoretical and a practical

knowledge of the subject, but are all such as

have been and can be carried out by workers of

ordinary ability and no technical training.

Being interested in the philosophy of education, I saw, as others have done, the great advantage to be gained by applying the fundamental principles of teaching to Sunday-school work. The experiment was tried. In proportion as those principles were followed, the scholars showed both increased interest and increased hold on the matter presented.

This bright response on the part of the children encouraged the spreading of the principles. Accordingly for some years they have been taught to Bible class scholars, in what has been called a Bible-normal class. The advantage to the Sunday-school of such a class is obvious. The Bible-normal scholars give a large proportion of their time to Bible work, and need not be more than sixteen years of age. The same methods are used in teaching classes of children 5

374275

6 Preface

which the normal scholars have the advantage of observing.

Such value has been attached to these methods that Sunday-school superintendents and teachers have repeatedly asked for talks on the subject. The following pages contain what has been given at these times, which is substantially the same as what is given to the Bible normal scholars and is found successful in actual practice.

Contents

I. The Spiritual Thought 9

II. How to Plan a Lesson 26

III. Lesson Planning Illustrated ... 54

II

Assuming that the teacher has decided what Bible selection is to be the basis of the lesson, and what spiritual thought is to be the theme, we proceed at once to the lesson outline. The first consideration is that of

The Lesson Title.

This at first seems unimportant. If unimportant, then uninteresting. But while we dismiss the matter of the lesson title as uninteresting, we forget that the child judges of the interest of what is to follow by this same neglected title. Tell a child that you are going to talk about " Samuel," and if the child does not happen to already know of Samuel, you might as well have said Methuselah, or any other name. Tell the same child that you are going to talk about " A little Boy to whom God spoke," and you have aroused both his sympathy and his curiosity.

If the class is old enough to follow a thought

and take part in the development of the lesson,

in other words if the teacher does not merely

tell a story, but proceeds by the question method, the lesson title has a second work to perform. It should express the general aim of the talk. By so doing it strengthens the unity of the lesson. For instance in the Samuel lesson, the title " A Little Boy to Whom God Spoke," may be interesting. It may do for the infant class to whom the story is told, or it may do as the title of the Bible account that a child is to read at home. But if there is to be class discussion the teacher should give a second title in some such form as, " Let us see to-day « How God spoke to a little boy long ago.' " From this title can be drawn interesting thoughts as to how God speaks to us. In all the talk, whether introduction, story or conclusion, the child knows, or can be easily shown, when he wanders from the topic in hand.

Some teachers may prefer to call this " stating the aim/ 1 In the teacher's mind it can be called either lesson aim or lesson subject. But when we face the child who has wandered from the point, it seems easier to ask, " What are we talking about ? " than to ask, " What is the aim of our talk ? " Moreover, our real aim is to teach some spiritual truth, and this we do not wish to express to the children at first.

Having worded our lesson title so as to both arouse interest and express the general aim of the talk, we have still a third use to make of it. Every teacher of children has had scholars who remember well the action or interesting part of stories but who constantly forget or confuse the names of the people about whom the stories are told. Some entire classes if asked what stories they know about Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob, would either be silent or make apparently wild guesses. Yet if started on any of the familiar stories about these people they would brighten up at once. Now the lesson title can be made to do much towards connecting the incident with the name. Accordingly, in place of saying, " Let us see to-day ' How God spoke to a little boy long ago/ " we say, " Let us see ' How God spoke long ago to a little boy named Samuel ; ' " or perhaps, " How God spoke to the boy Samuel." The title can be expressed in a variety of ways according to the age and character of the class. Other things being equal, a short title is preferable.

This principle of making the lesson title unite the lesson fact and its proper name, is based upon two psychological facts. The first is that an entire sentence, if not too long or complex/can be remembered by most people about as easily as a single word. If the sentence contains or suggests an interesting idea it can usually be remembered more easily than a new isolated proper name. The second is that when a thought and a name are habitually associated, as in a lesson title, the suggestion of either one will call to mind the other.

The Introduction.

(a) Point of Contact} — This heading and the following may sound somewhat technical and formidable, but the reader will find that they apply to simple devices unconsciously used by many teachers. An illustration from adult life will easily show what " point of contact " means.

Suppose that after Sunday-school the teacher of the class next to yours should stop you and begin an account of the home surroundings and personal peculiarities of the cousin of one of her scholars. It would not be long before you would begin to feel bored. But suppose that the child who was the cousin of one of this teacher's scholars was your most perplexing scholar. The entire matter would be different. You would talk as eagerly as the other teacher and be glad of every point of information. The fact that the child is in your class brings all that the teacher has to say on the subject into contact with your life and experience. That fact is the " point of contact" between the other teacher's talk and your interests.

In Sunday-school teaching " point of contact " simply means beginning with what the child is

1 Teachers to whom this is new can hardly do better than read Du Bois* excellent little book, " Point of Contact." Much of what is here presented is taken from that source. For more on the entire lesson plan see McMurry's " Method of the Recitation."

already interested in. It requires but little observation to learn that the child is far more interested in that which he has seen or experienced than in something far away either historically or geographically. He would rather know about the flower he has seen than about the beginning of the world. If he is interested in a historical character it is probably because he knows of that character as a child like himself. He is interested in children. If " in olden times " is to make a happy introduction it must be associated with " when wishing had power " or some other conception familiar to the experiences of childhood. It is the same with older scholars. Their experiences are broader, but the subject must still be in some way connected with their lives.

To illustrate ; — suppose we are going to teach the story of the " Good Samaritan " to boys nine and ten years old. We take the theme or spiritual thought, " All people are neighbours and brothers because all are children of the same Father." But we must not tell the spiritual thought at the beginning of the lesson. Shall we begin by discussing each verse, explaining each word as we read along ? Will the boys care anything about a " good Samaritan " ? Tell them where Samaria is on the map and will they care any the more ? On the other hand, begin by asking ho\fr many know an Italian when they see one. How many know a Jew, and so on.

Do they in any sense belong to the same family that we do ? The answer will almost surely be " no." Then state the lesson subject as — " Let us see what Christ said to a young man about whom he should think of as brother or neighbour."

A second point comes in here. Not only must we touch our scholar's experience to make our subject interesting, but we must touch concrete experience if possible. So in the lesson on the " Good Samaritan " we do better to follow our introductory questions by such as " To what nationality does your school janitor belong?" " To what does the man with the peanut stand ? " and so on. This leads to a talk on the question of annoying such people for fun. Then if the lesson is well brought out it requires little or no formal conclusion to make the boys feel that it is more noble, knightlike and Christlike to take the part of the school janitor and of the peanut man than to annoy them.

It may seem that this is putting the application before the lesson. To some extent it is. It is putting the concrete before the general, and that is the method of modern science. It is the method the children are taught to respect in their day-school work. The order of the lesson should be, — first, the most familiar cases ; then the strongcase, which is usually the Bible story ; then the conclusion which we reach by considering these cases. Not that this method strengthens the already supreme authority of the Bible, but that it strengthens our conclusion in its application to modern times and the scholars' lives. The object, however, is less to form a scientific conclusion than to put the scholars in an attitude of interest and receptivity towards the lesson truth.

Moreover the modern method begins with the less spiritual and leads to the more spiritual. This leaves the scholar on a high plane. He is more likely in the closing exercises to feel the meaning of the words, " Free from care, from labour free, Lord I would commune with Thee."

This ending with the spiritual rather than with the application involves the whole question of the object of the Sunday-school and of its relation to secular training. If the Sunday-school is responsible for a child's moral habits, perhaps the lesson should end with the application. But who is to see that the child puts these suggested applications into practice? If the home and the day-school do not see to this, the child almost certainly simply becomes hardened to hearing what his nature cannot unaided act upon. Nothing could be worse for his moral nature. On the other hand, if the Sunday-school is to teach the spiritual motive for habits begun and encouraged at home and in school, we can do no greater service than to lift the child to the highest point of vision of which he is capable, and leave him there for a while. Also if our object is to teach spiritual habits, such as reverence and prayer, this is the strongest method.

One more thought before we leave this subject of point of contact. As our aim is to teach spiritual truths, our point of contact must be between the spiritual truth and the child's experience. Many teachers grasp the idea of point of contact, but use it to make the Bible story or mental picture more vivid, rather than to make the thought of the lesson more clear. The story should indeed be as lifelike as possible, and the mental picture vivid, but this is not the place to accomplish that.

For instance, take the story of Samuel in the temple. We wish, let us say, to teach that God speaks to pure hearts in quiet times and sacred places. Shall we begin by asking what temples or great places of worship the child has seen ? Shall we ask what churches beside his own he has been in ? Shall we talk of ministers to-day as compared with priests? This might help the story, but the story has other devices to depend upon and our point of contact is needed for something more important.

Let us rather begin, after telling the lesson subject, by asking the child if he has ever been alone. Let him give instances. He will be almost sure to speak of being alone in the evening. Ask if he felt alone. Ask if he really was alone.

Bring up a strong feeling of God's fatherly presence at such times. Bring out how much less or how differently we feel God's presence when we have some wrong thought in our mind, and how that keeps us from listening to Him. Speak, perhaps, of the church or Sunday-school room as a place where God is especially apt to speak to us. Speak perhaps of why we close our eyes in prayer. All these things help the child not only to appreciate the story but to feel the spiritual thought. The story is as it were the climax.

(b) Correlation 1 is another step leading towards our climax. Point of contact deals with contributions which the child can make from his own experience. It gives reality and depth to the lesson. Correlation deals with contributions which the child can make from his previously acquired knowledge, as, for instance, from other stories. This gives strength and breadth to the lesson. In our lesson on Samuel, the child's own experience of feeling nearer to God at times when alone or in Sunday-school gives depth and reality to the lesson truth. If the child has already learned the story of God speaking to the faithful Abraham, to recall that gives a wider view of the truth.

1 Teachers to whom the general lesson plan as suggested in this chapter is new might omit this section on correlation till they are at ease in using the general outline.

Much review work can be introduced in this way. One trouble of teachers is that their scholars remember their lessons if the questions are asked in just the same form as before, but if the subject is approached from a slightly different point of view, as is sure to be the case if a visitor is allowed to question the class, the scholars do not recognize the subject. The habit of calling up such parts of previous lessons as fit the new lesson subject does much to overcome this difficulty. But the first consideration must always be the strengthening of the new lesson. This is not the place for review proper, and no farfetched comparisons must be brought in for the sake of review.

When facts from previous lessons are introduced for correlation it is sometimes called longitudinal correlation. Cross correlation means the correlation of knowledge from the other branches of study, as geography, or science, or general literature, with the Bible lessons. If our lesson is on the Good Samaritan, we may have our boys recall some highway robber scene ; or, what will help the meaning more, some illustrations of kindness to enemies. Boys' books, even their school-books in these days, are full of such incidents.

Care must be taken, however, that no new material is introduced under this head. The object is still to prepare the mind for new material that is to follow. As has often been said the mind is not a vessel into which we can at will put what we wish. Only in proportion as the new comes into relationship with what is already in the mind will the mind retain it. Only in proportion as the new is assimilated with the old in the mind can the mind use it.

Cross correlation, by associating the highest spiritual truths with secular knowledge as well as with Sunday-school topics, does a great service towards harmonious character development. We do not live in Switzerland, and our week-day paths are not studded with visible wayside crosses. Yet we do wish our week-day thoughts lifted and sanctified. This can be done partly by direct teaching, but more by the association or correlation of week-day subjects with the Sunday-school lesson. All knowledge and all life must be united in one aim. "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Let as many week-day thoughts as possible be so associated with our highest thoughts that they lift us to our best.

It is not at all important that correlation should come after point of contact in our lesson outline. In some lessons we seem to approach our theme more gradually and easily by the other order. Neither can we make a rule as to the proportion of time to be given to this introductory work. There are lessons where nearly the entire period should be given to it There are others where the story seems so connected with the scholar's life, and the spiritual thought so apparent, that introduction or conclusion seems almost to detract from its unique power.

The New Material.

(a) General Method. — Most of us have seen teachers who held their scholars spellbound while telling a lesson story. Most of us have also seen teachers who incited intense interest by the question or development method. Which plan shall we follow ? Obviously the answer to this question cannot always be the same.

The introduction ought almost always to be according to the question method. Without some response from the child we cannot tell when we have come in contact with his life or when we have aroused his interest. Each Sunday he comes to Sunday-school in a different mood. Some days a single reference to a subject would arouse his entire being. Other days that subject is far from his thoughts. We want his answers in order to know when our introduction has accomplished its work.

Moreover, the very self-activity required in trying to answer helps the child to put himself into the desired mood. If he is merely to listen to the teacher, the teacher has, in a double sense, the entire work to do. The teacher's efforts must bring the scholar to the desired line of thought. If the child is to answer questions, he makes himself come to the desired line of thought for the sake of the pleasure of taking part in the conversation.

Meanwhile, from these answers based on the child's own experience and knowledge, we learn far more than whether our introduction is successful or not. Any teacher who has tried this is aware how much is learned from children in this way. Any person interested in the modem researches concerning child interests and child powers knows what an advantage it would be if intelligent Sunday-school teachers would keep carefully the information obtained in these introductory talks.

The question of presenting new material is different. Children love a story. Children under ten or eleven do not feel that a narrative developed by the question method is a story, even if the teacher tells considerable and is never so graphic. Therefore, for the sake of making the children enjoy the new material the story method is desirable with the younger classes.

By the time the children can read, or at least when they are advanced enough to be out of the primary day-school, the work will be more dignified and improving if the question method be used even for the new material. The children should read the lesson at home and be able to contribute to the building up of the story in class. This usually begins at about nine years of age. As the children still love and perhaps even prefer the old story method, it is well for a year or two to mix the methods, usually building up the story but some days telling it.

In large classes especially, it seems easier for the teacher to talk than to see that each scholar contributes something. That older scholars retain less when they take no active and personal part in the lesson is easily overlooked. But after eleven or twelve years of age the children only become stupid or restless if the teacher does too much of the talking. The real teacher faces the facts and rises to the question method.

On the other hand, the question of discipline becomes for some people more difficult when the developing method is used. To require children to be still is for some easier than to control their activity. Yet in either case it must be remembered that successful discipline depends on the firmness of the teacher and on mutual affection rather than on the method of instruction. It may be easier for some teachers to be firm concerning the simple rule " be .still," than to be firm with regard to the more elastic one " help." It is easier, however, to win affection from those who help than from those who are still.

(b) The Setting. — Whether we proceed by the

40 How to Flan a Lesson

question or the story method, we do not wish the action of our story or the meaning of our passage interrupted by long explanations. If there is any matter in the lesson that requires more than a word or two of explanation it should be handled before the lesson proper is begun. Sometimes it can be brought in after the general introduction. It should be openly the explanation of something that is wanted for the lesson. If the lessons are read at home before they are discussed in class, it is much better to explain such matters in giving out the lesson.

For instance, if we are to take the story of the lame man who was told to take up his bed and walk, and our scholars are so young that they need more than a mere word of explanation regarding the bed, that explanation should be brought in here. If we are to take the story of the Good Samaritan, the entire question of the animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans should be brought in here. If the story is read at home, the matter should be explained in giving out the lesson, and only touched upon in review here.

When the lesson of the previous Sunday is so closely connected with the matter of the present lesson as to form part of its background, this is the place for a quick review of that lesson. But just as in correlation only such facts from past lessons must be used as help the thought, so now only such facts of the last lesson or of any previous lessons must be used as help to form a setting for the present lesson. Review for the mere sake of review must be an independent matter.

One great difference, however, exists between material used for point of contact or correlation, and material used here for the lesson setting. In point of contact and correlation no new material must be introduced. Here in the lesson setting is our chief time for instruction. Events that happened between the last lesson and the present, when helpful to the story, may be told outright. It goes without saying that it is well, both in giving these facts and in giving the above mentioned explanations, to see whether any child can contribute. But we must not encourage mere guessing, and we must not linger for slow development in this part of the work. We must keep our minds on the lesson theme.

(c) The Use of the Bible. — Secular educators are more and more advocating the plan of presenting the lesson by the development method in class before the text-book is studied. The text-book, where the scholars have one, is used rather in place of notes. The scholars' self-activity and interest in class are greatly increased by this method. The strongest argument for studying the text-book first, is that by so doing the scholar learns the practical use of books.

We are not concerned that Sunday-school children shall learn to use lesson leaflets. Even if we were, we could rely on their secular teaching to give them that power. We are, however, anxious that they learn to use the Bible. In order to teach them this we must have them individually and by themselves endeavour to use it We also want them to enjoy it. To accomplish this we must give them such parts to read or study as cannot fail to interest them. For the first few years of home Bible work in connection with the Sunday-school the story is about all that will interest the child. Let us therefore pick out interesting stories, assign them for home reading, one each week, and when assigning a given story explain any matter the knowledge of which is important for the intelligent reading of it. Happily, owing to the exceptional nature of Bible work, this will not interfere with the use of the development method in class. The younger scholars should read the Bible story for the simple interest in the story. In class they study a subject, beginning with their own experience, and leading to a spiritual truth. The Bible story is but one source from which their conclusion is derived. It is for this reason that we plan a slightly different title for the class lesson from that used for the home study. With scholars old enough to be taught to seek a spiritual thought in their home Bible study, the teacher should be careful to draw out the scholars' thoughts, but he should also be careful that he present a new, fresh view of the matter in class. In other words, as has already been said, the class lesson must be quite another matter from the lesson studied at home. The teacher's work is to lead the scholars to see a spiritual thought just above what they would see unaided.

With regard to the advisability of putting the Bible into the hands of young people much has been said. Practically, if children are given Bibles when so young that they find it difficult to read more than the appointed lesson, and the lessons are wisely chosen, they are easily led to feel that much of the Bible is incomprehensible to them, and that the way to enjoy it is to read the portions assigned. This soon becomes habit, and the child is in much less danger than when brought up to wonder why he should not read it. It is a serious question whether the habit of keeping the Bible from children is not responsible for its wide-spread disuse among adults.

But the Sunday-school use of the Bible does not end with the home reading of the lesson. One reason given for keeping the Bible story till the end of the Sunday-school lesson, whether story or question method is used, is that it puts and leaves the child on a high mental and spiritual plane. This is not so when teachers give the extremely free versions of Bible stories that we sometimes hear. We should do better to hold as closely as possible to the Bible account, even to the very words. This is not in opposition to giving facts or explanations, but merely to literary changes. From a merely literary standpoint we cannot reach a better style. The child feels this literary force and beauty. By using the Bible language orally we help him to read it well. He learns to enjoy it.

Moreover, there is a sacredness in the Bible words and Bible forms which the child easily feels. He should be encouraged to feel it. No rational modern interpretation of Bible stories will do as much to take away this feeling as the habit of reducing them to secular language and subjecting them to personally devised changes. The child does not want his story changed. If he knows the story only as we have told it, he is grieved later to find that it was otherwise. He would far rather know that his story is only legend or parable. He enjoys fiction. He hates alteration. He expects, and should be encouraged to expect, his idea of the meaning to change. Let us not throw away or tread upon the child's feeling of the Bible's sacredness. Let us rather use it, encourage it, and guide it. Let us help him to feel that the climax of the lesson is the Bible story.