43
What must be borne in mind here is that in
fl
discarding a spurious
technological simplification of reality and by acknowledging the
complexity of the
educational process the illuminative evaluation is
likely to increase rather than lessen the sense of uncertainty in
education”.
( p-32.)
It has been argued in the introduction and the
conclusion of the thesis
that
Il
ore uncertainty than at present is
desirable as against the 'doctrinal assertion' that guides so many of
our efforts in teacher education.
Illuminative evaluation appeared to
Il
∣eet both the requirements and the
ideological stance of staff offering a research mode that would serve
their needs most widely.
Prior to the establishment of the Research
Group in 1979-80 it was decided that it was vital for staff to examine
critically and reflectively the course they had built, becoming
aware
of how students saw it and what they felt were its advantages and
disadvantages.
Particularly it was seen as important as Parlett and
Hamilton indicate
to discuss what it is like to be participating in the scheme
and in addition to discern and discuss the innovation's most
significant features
recurring concomitants and critical
processes .
(Parlett and Hamilton
p.8.)
To achieve this meant the development of a mode of research which would
follow Parlett and Hamilton's injunction that each particular research
case required the application and development of its own appropriate
I
■ J,
r
L'
techniques .
■|J!
I
Ц
In this case the writer was familiar with the innovation through her
work in developing and teaching the course but in no sense does this