This
becomes
326
clear in considering a futher aspect of the role that
is concerned with the care, support and guidance of individual
students but which utilises for these purposes the possibilities
presented by the school group. In some ways initial teacher educ-
ation has traditionally provided support for other modes of working.
The Leicester Research made it quite clear that 'care’ and 'support'
were essential features of the subject tutor's role. If the school
and
Institute are to be integrated so that sense may be made of the
PGCE as a whole then the
total course
experience and response of
individual students
becomes
the concern of the school group tutor.
This responsibility may
bility which is broader
be shared with other Institute tutors and
with teacher tutors and the
school generally but it is a responsi-
that that which is common in PGCE courses.
It extends beyond the PGCE insofar as previous experience and future
plans have a rightful place in the PGCE year. New skills are
required not only in relation to students experiencing difficulties
as staff suggested in the Leicester Research (1982) but for working
with all students. The sharing of responsibility for supervision,
support and assessment with another trianing institute colleague
and with a teacher tutor in school requires quite different expect-
ations and negotiations than those required when that responsibility
pertains, as it has conventionally done in the university sector,
to one tutor.
Whilst the small group influences all of this^in itself it requires
new modes of working
new skills
and understandings
and these may
be unfamiliar to tutors whose expertise is regarded as the transmis-
sion of knowledge. The discussion in Chapter One indicated how
widespread this practice is in teacher education suggesting how much