Read on Twitter
I completely understand & agree that as an educator I should challenge myself to reach new heights each year. The kids deserve a teacher that strives for continual improvement. Ex. of forced growth is moving grade levels, teaching new texts, etc. However, teaching the same text
year after year can also prove beneficial & foster REAL growth. Example: I have presented Stephen Crane's "A Man Said to the Universe" to every HS ELA class that I've taught; typically I do this on the first day. I want to see how sts respond to the desperation &
isolation Crane expressed. When I first taught the poem, I focused on having the students replace the word "universe." They would imagine something in its place (Coach/Mom/America/god/etc.). We would discuss the ability to feel the same feelings as some guy who lived over 100
years ago, & I also stressed the importance of eliminating thoughts of "I can't do this" when it came to poetry. Why? Because many HS sts immediately shut down/roll their eyes/give up just from hearing the word "poetry." I prove to them that they CAN analyze "difficult" texts.
The poem:
A man said to the universe,
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
We would talk about isolation, desperation, and how those feelings are universal: right or wrong, we've all felt unseen, unheard, or
A man said to the universe,
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
We would talk about isolation, desperation, and how those feelings are universal: right or wrong, we've all felt unseen, unheard, or
unloved at some point. It wasn't until somewhere around year 7 that I recognized a bigger philosophical question for sts to answer to help them understand who they are (I think self-discovery is a major component of HS English classes). While we still cover the orginal points,
I now add this question: is it worse for the universe (or some substitute) to respond with "I see you, but I don't care." as the poem suggests, OR is it worse to cry out and the universe (or some substitute) never respond? It is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G to hear some of the ideas presented
during discussion among my HS sts. We're not splitting the atom, but we are journeying down the path to discovering how we feel about tough questions. We are LEARNING TO THINK! Both scenarios are bad, and both can be thoroughly defended as "worse." THE POINT OF THIS THREAD:
If I had only taught this poem for 6 years, replacing it with something "new" JUST to give the impression of growth, 10 years worth of students would have missed the most important question. Growing means continous improvemnt, even if it's teaching the "same ole' stuff." #Growth
This was written by a terrific student more than a year after participating in the lesson explained above. It was the 15th year of presenting the poem. Teachers, we must be passionate about growth, even if it's something we have taught/read 100 times; discover something new! END
