This post is the fourth of a four-part series on three different ways to engage with group members. You can also read part one, part two, and part three of this series, each of which explains one of the three ways of engagement.

Over the past three posts, we have examined three ways teachers tend to engage their class or group: the Presenter (tell/listen), the Investigator (ask/respond), and the Experimenter (propose/do). Given the strengths and weaknesses we have reviewed, you might now be wondering which approach is the best. Let’s be honest: every teacher has a preference. That preference may be dictated by how we learn, our comfort level with one approach, and our understanding of education. But the truth is that, as a teacher, we need to engage our class or group in all three ways at some point. We need the challenge, and they need the variety.

A great amount of research has been conducted on what and how we remember things, and the bottom line is that we remember more if we discover a truth or experience the concept for ourselves. So if that is true, then we must find ways of engaging our group members so that they at least are involved in the learning process. The allotted time, amount of content, and size of the group impacts how we engage with a class or group, but these limits shouldn’t keep us from finding a way to engage in multiple ways. Here’s a process to use:

1. Study the content. For us, that means studying the Bible passage using the tools you have at your disposal.

2. Identify the key points and THE key point. Within any Bible passage, there may be multiple points to make. However, there will also be a major point or truth that you must communicate. Another way of saying this is: determine the one thing you hope your class or group understands at the end of this study time.

3. Determine how you can help them discover this key truth. In effect, you are looking for a way to engage them as a learner. What can you lead the group to do to help them discover THE key point for themselves?

4. Identify the information they will need to make this discovery. Then decide how you can share that information with them. You are putting on your Presenter hat at this point.

5. Consider ways of helping the group process their discovery. You are looking for ways to challenge them to act on THE main point (or at least to consider acting on it). Now you have become the Interrogator, looking for ways to ask what are you going to do about it?

6. Determine how to introduce the study. This would be the last step, and it could be done with any one of the three approaches.

Some curriculum resources provide leader helps that include ideas that involve all three types of engagement. We may ignore those suggestions, but in doing so, we may also be ignoring the needs of our class or group. Our goal must always be to help our group members gain a clearer understanding of God’s truth, with a view toward them doing something with that clearer understanding. To accomplish that, we must tell, ask, and propose with the Spirit guiding our growth as teachers.

G. Dwayne McCrary is the team leader for Adult and Young Adult group resources at LifeWay, leads two weekly Bible study groups (one for empty-nesters and one for 4-year olds), serves as an adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and carries 20-plus years of church staff experience. He is married to Lisa (both native Texans), and they have two children and one grandson. Find him on Twitter: @gdwayne.

This post is the third of a four-part series on three different ways to engage with group members. You can also read part one and part two of this series.

Some of us may have had a science teacher along the way that gave us the freedom to experiment. Phrases heard in that class might have included: Let’s see what happens if we do this! I wonder if this will work? and They call it trial and error for a reason. The teacher was just as anxious as we were to see what happened when Mentos were dropped into a bottle of carbonated drink. That same teacher purchased different brands of carbonated drinks for the next science class just to find out if one produced more foam than the others.

In this approach, the Experimenter discovers right along with the group. They may have a general framework to follow, but always with an open end. It is about the experience and the discovery. The Experimenter guides the group through a discovery process, while the group creates the final product. The group members prepare before the group time, with the expectation of contributing to the experience by sharing their discoveries, testing their conclusions, and asking their questions. The group is provided content prior to the meeting to examine and process prior to the group time. That way, the group can start when the first person arrives.

The Experimenter must prepare for multiple contingencies, since he or she does not know the exact direction the group time may take. Experimenters may have a general idea based on their own study, but there is always the possibility of a rabbit-chase lurking. This approach could also be described using the terms propose/do.

The strength of this approach is that the thoughts and insights of group members are valued. Not all ideas are equal, but at least each can be explored and compared to the larger whole. It also encourages active participation. In fact, the amount of interaction determines the length and quality of the group time.

But the level of interaction is also a core weakness. Guests will not be able to jump in without some type of help. Not everyone wants to interact with every subject or, in our case, every Bible verse. The lack of structure, or perceived lack of structure, will frustrate some group members. The structure of a class helps people organize and focus their thoughts. They need the clues and the prompts of the Presenter and Investigator. The group time also lends itself to the chasing of rabbits, some of which are not worth chasing. Group members don’t mind rabbits every once in a while as long as they get to the meat of the matter as well.

One of the biggest potential dangers of using this approach exclusively is the teacher losing his or her credibility. The Experimenter is an expert on the process, but the group wants someone who is an expert on the content as well. If the group believes they are just as knowledgable as the leader on a subject, they look elsewhere for answers to the hard questions and when they are in a crisis. When that happens, the Experimenter loses his or her place in the group and is no longer needed.

Over the past three posts, we have examined three different approaches to engaging the group. Since each has its own inherent strengths and weaknesses, which one is best? Does it simply come down to a teacher’s preference? How do you know which one to use and when? That is the question we will examine in our next post.

G. Dwayne McCrary is the team leader for Adult and Young Adult group resources at LifeWay, leads two weekly Bible study groups (one for empty-nesters and one for 4-year olds), serves as an adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and carries 20-plus years of church staff experience. He is married to Lisa (both native Texans), and they have two children and one grandson. Find him on Twitter: @gdwayne.

This post is the second of a four-part series on three different ways to engage with group members. You can read part one of this series here.

You walk into the room and it happens. You are handed a piece of paper with a story printed on the top half and questions on the bottom half. The story speaks in generalities and stops before there is resolution. The person who handed you the sheet of paper asks you to tell him how you would finish the story, if it was being written about you. He listens intently, asking for clarification on some points. He then zeros in on one statement you made, explaining that today’s Bible story will contain a similar statement and encourages you to listen for it during the course of the discussion.

You have just entered the world of the Investigator. The pattern is simple: share content, ask a set of questions for response, share more content, ask more questions for response. The questions are not “got it” questions (such as, what did Paul say in this passage?) but tend to be more process and probing questions (for example, do you agree with what was done? How do you see this in our world?) The leader shares and asks, while the group members listen and respond. Another way of describing this approach is ask/respond.

The Investigator must be able to identify strategic information and stories that connect to that information. He or she must also be able to craft a question set that moves a person in a specific direction. (For further explanation of using question sets, read my posts on the topic: part 1 and part 2.)

This approach does engage the group in interacting with the content in some way, which is a strength.There is also little to no preparation required for the group members, opening the door for guests to more readily participate. Everyone simply responds to the questions asked based on their experiences and the information shared. Good Investigators maintain control by the content they choose to introduce to the group and by the questions they ask. This keeps the group on task and away from unfruitful discussions.

Like the presenter approach, little is expected of the group member as far as preparation is concerned. Once again, this is a strength and a weakness. The group is open to new people, but commitment to studying beyond the group is minimized. This approach will take more preparation time by the leader than the other two approaches. Creating good questions takes time and lots of effort. Some would characterize the creating of good questions sets as the most difficult of all tasks undertaken by a teacher.

The group members also run the risk of becoming dependent upon the Investigator to ask questions (a basic function required for learning and critical thinking). This approach could be a way to teach others how to develop quality questions, but only if the group and individuals in the group are given the opportunity to lead in an investigation (which rarely happens). Simply watching someone else ask does not mean we will suddenly become an investigator as well. An interrogation-only group also tends to be threatening a new person. They can feel put on the spot in front of the group and forced to share something they didn’t want to share. Trust is a must, which also takes time and usually excludes additional people from being added to the group.

Next, we look at the Experimenter.

G. Dwayne McCrary is the team leader for Adult and Young Adult group resources at LifeWay, leads two weekly Bible study groups (one for empty-nesters and one for 4-year olds), serves as an adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and carries 20-plus years of church staff experience. He is married to Lisa (both native Texans), and they have two children and one grandson. Find him on Twitter: @gdwayne.

This post is the first of a four-part series on three different ways to engage with group members.

Conference leaders and teachers (myself included) can be placed into one of three categories: Presenters, Investigators, and Experimenters. These categories are about how a person engages with the group. Each type has a place in the process of teaching-learning, but using only one or overusing one can become an obstacle to learning. Over the next three posts, we will define each approach, identify some of the strengths and weaknesses, and highlight the danger of relying solely on that approach.

We begin with the Presenter.

In this engagement approach, the teacher is the expert. At the designated time, everything stops as the Presenter calls the group to order. Their charge is to study and then deliver the studied content in a compelling way. If they are really good, they will do it without a minute to spare. The people in the group are expected to respectfully listen and take note of key thoughts and ideas. One possible way of describing this approach is tell/listen.

Building an effective presentation requires at least two essential skills. The first is discerning the main points and expressing them in a logical and simple way. The Presenter pours over resources prior to the group time in an effort to do just that. The Presenter must also craft illustrations that help the group understand the main points, building on their experiences and stating them in terms the group understands.

The strength to this approach is that it is the one most modeled. Think about the number of conferences and college classes that function in this way. In some ways, the size of a class dictates the use of this approach. The approach also lends itself to covering large chunks of content in a short time. The risk is low for the group with little required beyond listening. Reading something beforehand would be a bonus, but it is not required. The group may or may not know what the Presenter will say prior to the group meeting, but that is immaterial. With that in mind, this approach may be more guest-friendly than the other two.

The risk for the leader is also minimized because there may be little opportunity for the group to play “stump the teacher” as long as all the time is taken. The Presenter will rarely lose control of the group as long as he or she delivers some content.

The fear of not being able to deliver content can drive the Presenter to study harder, but that same fear elevates the stress level and therein lies the first weakness. It all depends on the teacher and his or her ability to deliver compelling content. This kind of pressure can take away the joy of teaching and lead to burnout over time. The low expectations on the group has a downside as well. As much as you may encourage a person to prepare, if they know you will give them the basic content that they would have read prior to attending, they will do little to no preparation prior to the study time. Why should they? This approach can also leave the group with questions that go unanswered if no system is in place to get clarification.

One danger of solely relying on this approach is the potential for codependency. Codependency is a type of dysfunctional relationship where one person enables another person’s harmful habit. In a presenter-only world, the group tells the Presenter how gifted he or she is and how well they presented. This affirmation feeds the ego of the Presenter, placing him on the wobbly pedestal as the expert. In return, the Presenter gives the group information they could have discovered themselves, fostering laziness and lower commitment. Both feel good about themselves and return to the next meeting ready to do it all over again.

In the next post, we look at the Investigator.

G. Dwayne McCrary is the team leader for Adult and Young Adult group resources at LifeWay, leads two weekly Bible study groups (one for empty-nesters and one for 4-year olds), serves as an adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and carries 20-plus years of church staff experience. He is married to Lisa (both native Texans), and they have two children and one grandson. Find him on Twitter: @gdwayne.