The name is absent

105

modest but they emphasise the strength of developing different pat-
terns, and the importance of maintaining flexibility. The following
extracts from the proposal which operated ∙*¾ 1984-85 show the
way in which practice in this area has developed.

..... work and development is likely to centre in
the following areas:

participation with Institute school-based
tutor(s) in the planning, organisation and
running of a weekly school-based seminar which

is part of student groups’

timetabled

activities;

ii) participation with Institute school-based
tutors, students and colleagues in the planning
of the school-based day;

participation with Institute school-based

tutors, students, subject department staff

and Institute method tutors

in the

supervision and assessment of the

planning ,
students’

teaching practice;

In addition, consideration to be given to:

iv) participation in the planning and teaching

of non-school located parts of the course;

v) participation in the selection of students

for the course;

vi) participation in the general assessment of
students including the development of self-
assessment .

The role of the teacher-tutor is envisaged as working
with student teacher, Institute staff, and school
staff, establishing together collaborative modes
of working which are based on shared knowledge and
understanding rather than sectional interest. (Jones 1984)

Just as in the Sussex scheme so in the Alternative

Course revision

of the roles of both teacher-tutor and univer sity

tutor were seen

logical consequences of previous developments.

the Sussex

scheme

the

increased participation

of the students

in the planning and evaluation of the

course was noted and this