335
ience of a degree of collaboration across this divide see both as
essential. The research suggests that at least in the foreseeable
future differences
eaning and of practice
will be apparent and
will have to be faced by schools and training
certainly by students.
institutions and most
This is an aspect of the tension Lacey (1977) refers to between the
institutions and it permeates most aspects of the student’s work
and was quite clear in the Research Group discussions. The split
between the school and the training institution allows for and some-
times seems to encourage, accommodation to one or the other and it
requires considerable commitment and courage for students to accept
and work with the contradictions. To point to the centrality of
active experience is to work with notions of individual resolution
and r^tf<B°nsibility. At the end of the day the student may choose
not to work with the contradictions and resolution can only be
achieved with considerable personal effort. Achieving resolution
as the research showed is long term and involves all aspects of the
course including its written work. Critically it involves all those
associated with PGCE students z including but not exclusively school
group and teacher
tutors»in the
sometimes
uncomfortable
realisation
that their teaching does not necessarily ensure their students’
learning. It is this learning which is the central focus for the
school group tutor who, with access
to students ’ work in a variety
of contexts.can support the students
in their professional learning.
Once this is accepted the
focus of
attention
moves from the
course
to theindividual and to the
environments which are provided to
enable ,
inform and support his
or her professional learning.
This brings
structure and pedagogy
into a
clear
and unambiguous
relationship.