Whilst
visiting
юз
or teacher-tutors if members of appropriate subject
departments
participated in the assessment this aspect of their
role was not given a central focus. In the early years of the course
the Report stressed the exploratory nature of relationships with
teachers and underlined very real differences.
It takes time to establish but makes possible course
growth and development, which were originally mere
good intentions. Participation of staff in school
seminars or other work in the Institute underlines
the dual responsibility of school and Institute
in Initial training. Again, flexibility is the
key, for particular teachers’ relationships to the
Alternative Course are affected by so many factors.
Some teachers value the possibility the Course offers
for continuing aspects of their own professional
development
- for reflecting on their own procedures
with students newly experiencing them. Others see
the course
as
a way
of
transmitting to
students
knowledge based on their own considerable experience.
Still others want to learn from students how their
school appears. (Jones 1981 P36)
Unlike the
Sussex
scheme the Alternative Course
late to the
formal
inclusion of teacher-tutors throughout the course.
In its
early years it was concerned with the development and exploration
of existing possibilities and worked within the limitations of an
already existing visiting tutor scheme. Its central thrust was
to change the role of the university tutor. It is change in this
role that is critical in each of its stated aims
- to provide a tutorial relationship that would
give greater coherence to different parts of the
students’ work;
- to develop a
ship between
collaborative and supportive relation-
tutor and student on teaching practice;
- to develop a working relationship between the
schools and the Institute;
to
find
Il
eans of developing theory from systematic
reflection upon shared practice. (Jones 1981
P6)