323
students who themselves have
not experienced
a variety of ways in which groups can be organised and the conse-
sequences of such organisation will become convinced and knowledge-
able practitioners
and this opportunity should be offered
within the PGCE.
Responsiveness of structure to PGCE course
At the beginning of this section responsiveness to the generality
of PGCE was stated as a necessity and this requires further explan-
ation. If it is accepted that subject method departments like their
counterparts in schools
in their practices every bit as *theore-
as foundation departments within the training Institute then
the theory of education cannot be seen as the prerogative of parti-
cular groups of foundation disciplines or courses. A joint commitment
to conventionally separate areas of work is required. Staff need
to be constantly aware that their separation is an institutional
if honoured construction that may change like other educational
and social constructions.
However
they may
constitute formidable
obstacles for new ways of
working
whilst
they remain
separate .
This
point is made by Paul Hirst when he discusses the development of
his own views.
The adequate formulation and defense of these (prin-
ciples for educational practice) I now see as
resting not simply on appeal to the disciplines but
on a complex pragmatic process that uses its own
appropriate practical discourse. (Hirst 1983 P26)
The school group’s existence in the Institute tied not to a parti-
cular course but
to a school was the setting for responding to the
generality of students' PGCE work. Consistently anchored to specific