In this request from input from the group, Skip puts together a very cohesive point about the relationship between PQA and stories.
I came away from the conference with a question. My first workshop was with Michael Miller and Barb on Personalization. Michael MIller said that the better one becomes at PQA the less necessary it is to do stories. I then went to Blaine and Von’s workshop where they were doing stories. They were teaching how to affirm details.
My take is that the personalization allow much more compelling input than do stories. I kept thinking in Blaine’s workshop that my students may easily become bored with the contrived nature of the stories. I know that Blaine says that the unexpected makes the stories interesting but I am not so sure.
Can I ask the readers on the blog what their take is? I am feeling very wary of stories especially now that I have seen what can be done with PQA. Can asking stories be as compelling as PQA around 3 structures? I experienced being caught up in the CI while at the conference. The language was secondary – the communication was primary. The was a LOT going on sub-consciously.
The thought of PQA makes me feel VERY vulnerable because it seems like I have much less control. The payoff, however, is input that seems more compelling to me than asking stories.
I am feeling kind of torn on this and would be very interested in how others are feeling.
Admins don’t actually read the research. They don’t have time. If or when they do read it, they do not really grasp it. How could