Showing fragments matching your search for: <strong>""</strong>

No matching fragments found in this document.

Demonstration is the key here. The moment you ask this type of student to
demonstrate a rule or theory with his hands or the paper clips on your desk
this
glibness will shatter.

    The reason for this is that in memorizing words or  ideas,  the  student
can still hold
the position that it has nothing to do with  him  or  her.  It  is  a  total
circuit action.
Therefore, very glib. The moment you say "Demonstrate" that word or idea or
principle, the student has to have something to do with it. And shatters.

    The  thoroughly  dull  student  is  just  stuck  in  the  non-comprehend
blankness
following some misunderstood word.

    The "very bright" student who yet can't use the data isn't there at all.
He has long
since ceased to confront the subject matter or the subject.

    The cure for either of these conditions of "bright non-comprehension" or
"dull"
is to find the missing word.

    But these conditions can be prevented by  not  letting  the  student  go
beyond the
missed word without grasping its meaning. And that is the duty of the twin.

                             COACHING IN THEORY


    Coaching Theory means getting a student to define all  the  words,  give
all the
rules, demonstrate things in the text with his hands or bits of things,  and
also may
include doing Definitions of Scientology terms.

    The usual Course Supervisor action would be to have any student  who  is
having
any trouble  or  is  slow  or  glib  team  up  with  a  twin  of  comparable
difficulties and have
them turn about with each other with Theory Coaching.

    Then when they have a text assignment coached, they gi/e  their  twin  a
checkout.
The checkout is a spot  checkout,  a  few  definitions  or  rules  and  some
demonstration of
them.

                                DEMONSTRATION


    Giving a text assignment  check  by  seeing  if  it  can  be  quoted  or
paraphrased proves
exactly nothing. This will not guarantee that the student knows the data  or
can use or
apply it nor  even  guarantees  that  the  student  is  there.  Neither  the
"bright" student nor
the "dull" student (both suffering from the same malady) will  benefit  from
such an
examination.

    So examining by seeing if somebody "knows" the text and can quote or
paraphrase it is completely false and must not be done.

    Correct examination is done only  by  making  the  person  being  tested
answer

    (a) The meanings of the words (re-defining the words  used  in  his  own
    words and
    demonstrating their use in his own made up sentences), and

    (b) Demonstrating how the data is used.

    The twin can ask what the words mean. And the twin can ask for  examples
of
action or application.

    "What is the first paragraph?" is about as dull as one  can  get.  "What
are the rules
given about _____ ?" is a question I would never bother to ask.  Neither  of
these
tells the twin whether he has the bright non-applier  or  the  dull  student
before him.
Such questions just beg for natter and course blows.

    I would go over the first paragraph of any material I  was  examining  a
student on
and pick out some uncommon words. I'd ask the student to define each and
demonstrate its use in a made up  sentence  and  flunk  the  first  "Well...
,er... .let me
see...." and that would be the end of that checkout.  I  wouldn't  pick  out
only
Scientologese. I'd  pick  out  words  that  weren't  too  ordinary  such  as
"benefit"
"permissive" "calculated" as well as "engram".

    Students I was personally examining would begin to get a hunted look and
carry
dictionaries-BUT THEY WOULDN'T BEGIN TO NATTER OR GET SICK OR
BLOW. AND THEY'D USE WHAT THEY LEARNED.