19
studying them with the emphasis upon what the implications are of
the new modes. Only at a later stage, if decisions are taken to
incorporate features of the innovation into normal practices,might
controlled evaluation become appropriate. This stage will be
reflected in the Cambridge research for those courses they study
which are established features of their institutions. For new and
experimental
programmes
the development
of ways of working should
go hand in hand with the conceptualisation
of the process and the
development of worthwhile conceptions of
teaching and learning
emphasised by Taylor.
The recent models for curriculum development
and research are nearer
to this conception with their sensitivity to the institutional and
personal factors involved in change as well as their commitment
to an illuminative stance for evaluation (Hamilton and Parlett 1972).
Nevertheless
other
models
and traditions die hard having an established
place that is influential
both in research upon, as well as discussions
of teacher education. Surrounding both discussions of teacher
educators and research upon their practice various stances exist
each with their own discourse. Teacher educators who try to develop
new forms of practice must be concerned with this and with the know-
ledge base within which they themselves operate. In trying to change
practice they must be aware of the commonsense which surrounds them
as well as that which they themselves are developing. Otherwise
there may be relatively
isolated
of experimental
practice
and
there
may
be
alternative voices competing within the discourse
but fundamentally the knowledge base and the practice from which
it emanates will remain unchanged and unchallenged.