Diane Larsen-Freeman

184 Conelusion
teachers' avoidin g tak ing a position. But ' it de pends' answers might be
ta ken by others as signs of the wisdom of practice. For teac hing is full of
contingencies that require a response in the moment which may be more
intui tive tha n a manifestatio n of a conscious philosoph ical position . It is
also true tha t with us hum an beings, there is often a gap betw een our
intentions and our act ions. And fi nally, it is tru e tha t man y decisions arc
outside the control of teachers. Th ey must teach for a test, for instance.
Or they ma y have a class where stud ent s come with negative attitudes
toward the study of language. Fanselow (1987 ) observes t hat perhaps as
little as two percent of the variance that contributes to learning may be
controlled by the teacher. And yet as he says, ' But so wha t? If learning
equals one hundred perc ent, and lack of learning means anything less
tha n one hundred percent, the two percent we arc responsible for makes
the differe nce between learning and not learni ng' (1987: 11).
TEACHING AS THE MANAGEMENT OF LEARNING
Teachers who teac h as if their practice causes learning, while recogn izing
tha t they ar e not in cont rol of all of th e relevan t factors, and tha t at the
least they are in partnership with th eir stude nts in this ente rprise, can be
true man agers of learn ing. I I am not speaking narrowly of classroom
management, but rather more broadly of someone who can live with the
paradox of knowing tha t teach ing does not cause learn ing, all the wh ile
knowing that to be successful, one must act as if it docs. And it is this
commitment to unloc king the learning potential in each student that
motivates a teacher to ma ke infor med methodological ch oices. Teachers
who arc man agers of learn ing recogn ize in general tha t a number of
methodological options exist, but they are guided in any particular
moment by a compass consisting of a set of values , some knowledge and
experience, and a commitment to (par ticular) learn ing outcomes. Such
teach ers do not despair in methodological profusion; they welcome it.
Th ey know that the more tools they have at their disposal , the better off
they arc in having a large repertoire to choose from when a teach ab le
mom ent present s itself. T hey recognize tha t they must focu s students'
attention on the learning cha llenge, and then step back and respon d in
service to their learning.
Wh en asked if they wo uld usc a particular techni que, assign a purticular
reading passage, ask a particula r question, they answer, 'It depend s.'
Th ere may be times when a pattern dr ill is a ppropriate, or giving a gra m-
I Allwri ght (1984) was perhap s the lim to us... this ter m.
Con clusion 185
mar rule, or an interac tive task, or an acti vity wh ich invo lves mea ning
negotiat ion, depending on the learni ng cha llenge or what the st udents arc
st ruggling with at the mom ent. 'It depends' statements prov ide us with
evidence of the highl y complex, interpretive, co ntingent knowl edge
which teachers/managers must possess in order to do thei r wo rk.
THE DEVELOP M ENT OF METHO OOLOGY
But there is another important dimension to th e que stion of teaching
methods that must be considered. And that is that learni ng to teach is a
de velopmental process (Freem an 1991 ); indeed, while there may not be
any strict sequence of developmental stages in teaching, learn ing it is said
to be a lifelong process. Thus, before concluding, I offer a brief autobiogra
phical sketc h ofmy own developmenta l as a teacher, as an illustra tion,
one not meant to be a model (Larsen-Freeman t 998b).
Wh en 1was first learning to teach, I was tra ined in a particular met hod .
Fortunately for me, I was oblivious to alternatives. 1 practiced one
method exclusively, using the books tha t 1 had been given. I wa s learning
to teach and all of my attent ion was on trying to the best of my abi lity to
adhere to the metho d, wh ile learning the classroom rou tines and main ­
ta ining some sense of decorum in the meantime. I was the teache r (whi le
learning to be one) and wa s teaching (whi le learn ing to do so at the same
time ).
After a while, I grew dissatisfied wit h my teaching. r found that it had
reached a level where I could give less attention to what l was doing an d
more to what my students were learning. The consequence was that I did
not like what Jsaw. J felt that there had to be a better method than the one
I was practicing. I sought fur ther 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 do ing. I felt during this phase
of my development tha t I was 110 longer learn ing to teach. My view of
teaching had chan ged. I knew a lot, bur l rea lized that there was a lot
more to learn. I foun d that 1 was learning teaching. I no longer was
preparin g to do something. I was expe riencing it, an d I was learning a
great dea l fro m the ex perience.
Learnin g reaching has sustained me for man y years-s-and still docs ,
even though my area of con cern is now less language reaching than Ian ­
guagc teacher education. One of the probl ems with relatin g my cxpcr i­
once in this fashion , is that it appear s that my development as a teach er is
a linear process, with each stage being discrete. T his is not the case. J am