322
for subject method departments is to develop explicitly, or impli-
citly both a theory and a practice (Burgess in Meek and Miller, 1984).
Insofar as it is based on their subject and professional concerns
and
especially if it is developed in relative isolation from work
in schools it may
be Unreceptive to areas of importance which may
be the proper concern of PGCE students. In the research school
groups were shown exploring the subject method orientations to wider
social and political issues.
The possibility of such work is argu-
ably the result of the composition
duration and location of the
school group in the PGCE.
The school group at its best gives
students a distance
zand
from /a space to look at their method department
reducing the pressure to opt
in or out of particular theoretical
or
formulations
of practice that otherwise might occur.
Without the
and somewhat
school group the subject method group carries an undue
artificial burden of PGCE work based as it is on the
tutorial group with a responsibility for and
link to practice.
Sub-
ject method work often has advantages of continuity denied to other
parts of the course but within schools many key issues cut across
departmental
boundaries and therefore school
group and method group
are essentially complementary.
Size is probably less the issue than location and function. Single
size influenced by internal
school groups probably have an optimu
school considerations but combinations of school groups can work
effectively
together
and within the Alternative
Course as many as
five schools are represented in a single method group. Flexibility
and space to develop appropriate grouping are all important and the
involvement of students in discussions and decisions here is an
important learning experience itself. There is little hope that