Interest in the field of "Personal Competence" (or Learner Autonomy, or Learning to Learn, or Learner Independence, or whatever the next variation will be) is growing and, I believe, rightly so. However, one question keeps lingering in my mind and that is, "Are we as teachers prepared to accept change as willingly as we expect our students to, and if not, why not?" or, to put it another way, "Are we prepared to taste our own medicine?"

I believe that learning involves change, and change involves risk. As we learn more about the world around us, so our feelings and attitudes towards it change. No one is likely to claim that they are the same person now as ten years ago. Change means going from the known to the unknown, taking on new beliefs or modifying old ones. Sometimes it is forced upon us - a new syllabus is introduced, we are given different classes to teach., etc. - but when there is a choice, when we can decide whether to accept the challenge of change, the amount of risk we perceive there to be will affect our choice.

Questioning our own teaching principles and practices obviously scores high in terms of activities which involve risk. It's often difficult to accept that what we've been doing for years need not necessarily be the best way and we might have to rethink such established ideas. These are ideas which seem to have worked for us in the past and we see no reason why they should not in the future. But this is at the very heart of the question I asked earlier: if we are not prepared to do this, then should we expect our students to question their values and beliefs when it comes to their learning process? Is it a case of 'Do as I say, not as I do'?

Most people like to think that they have an open mind. But are we as open as we think we are? Have you ever heard yourself or a colleague saying, "It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't work in my classroom." "My students are too___ for that to work." These types of questions are often indicators of resistance to change. New ideas meet with almost immediate dismissal.

This is something akin to what Dr. Edward de Bono calls 'the intelligence trap'. The first reaction to a given situation is presumed right, and from there we use our intelligence to back up our initial argument rather than to explore its possibilities.

We are not likely to come up with a completely new alternative to the learning process. It's more a continuum of modification which we aim to move along. Learning, by nature, is iterate and unending. A commitment to continuous growth requires a great amount of tenacity and dedication, but above all trust. Trust in ourselves and those around us is the pole which will help us to keep our balance on the continuum tightrope.

There is undoubtedly a plethora of new ideas, techniques, methods, ways and more ways. I believe we need a firm foundation and supportive environment to help us face the inherent dangers of too much and too rapid change, the results of which can lead to cries of "Danger!" or an interminable whimpering of "It depends". Personally, I find myself oscillating between the two - perhaps as the tightrope walker wobbles when just about to lose his balance.

If I am to grow as a teacher, if I am to be tolerant of this ambiguity which prevails, I need to have the support and patience of those I work with. I need to feel safe, safe enough to let my protective shields down, confident enough to say, "I don't know" or "This is what I believe at this moment" without fearing that the firing pins are being cocked in readiness for the pedagogical turkey shoot.

People can often be heard chanting such platitudes as "Change is here to stay". Has it ever been any different? When has history stood still? Perhaps what is different is that now we are expected to be capable of changing more quickly and more radically.

"Are we prepared to accept change?" is a deliberately ambiguous question. Prepared in the sense both of being willing to and in the sense of having the right "tools" and environment to instigate change.