that there had to be a better method than the one I was practicing. I sought further
education. What I discovered from this education was that although there were
other methods, there was very little agreement on the best way to teach. What was
important though was for me to be able to rationalize what I was doing. I felt
during this phase of my development that I was no longer learning to teach. My
view of teaching had changed. I knew a lot, but I realized that there was a lot more
to learn. I found that I was learning teaching. I no longer was preparing to do
something. I was experiencing it, and I was learning a great deal from the
experience.
Learning teaching has sustained me for many years—and still does, even though
my area of concern is now less language teaching than language teacher
education. One of the problems with relating my experience in this fashion, is that
it appears that my development as a teacher is a linear process, with each stage
being discrete. This is not the case. I am still learning to teach in some respects
(such as every time I meet a new group of students for the first time), and I am
still learning teaching. In fact, I am still learning about the subject matter that I
have been teaching for over forty years! However, I believe I can identify an
additional chapter in my own story because I realize in retrospect that during my
learning teaching phase I was still operating under the assumption that at some
point I could master teaching. Sure, there would always be some new
developments in the field, but for the most part, I thought I could make room for
them without upsetting my practice very much. I was mistaken. I finally came to
realize that I could never master teaching. Practically everything I needed to
know, including my students, was always changing.
Language, learning, teaching are dynamic, fluid, mutable processes. There is
nothing fixed about them (Larsen-Freeman 1997; Ellis and Larsen-Freeman
2006). I would characterize my third stage then as just learning. This is not the
willful learning of teaching, but the egoless following of learning. Further, this
learning is not a gerund; this learning is a participle. It is not something that
results in a static product; it is a dynamic process. Learning in this sense means
being open to what comes, relating to it, and becoming different in its presence
(Caleb Gattegno, personal communication). And by so doing, when I am able to
do it, I am learning all the time.Let us restate that we are not being prescriptive. Larsen-Freeman was simply
describing her own experience. Different teachers no doubt have their own stories to
tell. And surely one can mature professionally in this field by deepening one’s
practice in a particular method, rather than by switching methods. But what may be
more common than is usually acknowledged is that each of our stories unfolds over
our lifespans as teachers (Freeman and Richards 1993). And what seems to lead to the