18
on the solution of problems" (Taylor , 83) and through that activity
and reflection upon it
to become more knowledgeable.
This may go
some way to explaining
more likely it is to
Gwyneth Dow's account
why the more experimental the programme the
generate an account or series of accounts.
(1979) is a most worthy example in teacher
education. When a basic if unexplicated concern of the programme
is with the "conceptualisations of the process", and the associated
metaphors and theories referred to by Taylor^ then evaluation is
less of a concern than illumination, for at a basic level an
illuminative stance is required to serve the internal needs of the
development. If the development is to break new ground then its
guiding aims and images must constantly be observed within the reality
of, for example, institute, seminar, school, classroom and course
assessment procedures. Whilst that reality offers constraints and
pressures back to the usual and the expected, the practitioner's
concern is not that per se but how this occurs and how far they
can be transcended. Reflection and recollection have a key place
in all of this. Additionally for teacher educators there is their
own place in the teacher education debate whether this is at
institutional or wider levels. Personal experience suggests that
a commitment to changes in teacher education out of time and tune
with one's own institution can become the opportunity to be involved
in
experiment.
Subsequent
involvement
then has two major aspects.
The first
to the development
improvement and understanding of the
experiment and the second to its wider
ications
for change in
teacher education more generally.
Perhaps a distinction should be made between the stages of development
with the experimental phase being concerned with what Taylor calls
devising
and implementing experimental and alternative programmes