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
as
logical consequences of previous developments.
In
the Sussex
scheme
the
increased participation
of the students
in the planning and evaluation of the
course was noted and this