The name is absent

і)

to incorporate the traditionally separated con-
cerns of methods and education work within a
single framework;

to allow for this integrated framework to be

directly linked

in school

..... to a student’s experience
Long term Working Party Report)

96

It was

base

(Jones 1981 P6)

the possibility of relationships

which extended the method

that was seen as important and the effect that this could have

upon the students’ school experience.

Some broadening of

the base of the practice made

increased numbers of

students a possibility and the

mixed-subject school

group became the second base

of the course (Jones 1981 P7).

This is a factor which is seen very positively by most
students. Students comment again and again on the
importance of the ’mix’ in making you think and re-
think and express your own positions. So the

confrontation

and engagement with other perspectives

is ongoing and held in the course structures. Repeat-
edly, student comment was in favour of widening the
subject base. (Jones 1981 P30 3.4.6)

The effect of the mixed subject groupings which constituted

the

school groups not only made a dialogue between the subjects

possible

but

perhaps more

portantly it

allowed a challenge to the

implicit

Not only

the nature

but the size of the school groups is

portant

for with an average

of

eight

Il

embers the groups

were small enough

to provide personal

support and cohesion and thus themselves develop

sub-cultural

This is indicated in the following extracts

from students' comments on the course.

They are partial

but