This paper focuses on recent and innovative moves towards flexible learning in initial teacher education programmes in England and Wales, as part of the 'widening participation' agenda in higher education and in response to changes in teacher recruitment patterns. We take as our perspective our own experience as two course tutors in a higher education institution that introduced flexible routes into its secondary teacher education programme at the beginning of the academic year 2002/2003. Using the university's model for our case study, we have undertaken a small-scale research project and reviewed the literature describing flexible learning discourses in higher education, to consider the extent to which concepts of flexibility are being translated into practice. In particular we highlight some implications for pedagogy and practice that have become apparent at this early stage in the development of flexible courses and which will have an impact upon their progress in the future.

This article investigates school mentors' perspectives on their role in training student-teachers following an initial teacher education (ITE) programme via a flexible learning route. The paper draws upon data gathered from focus groups and interviews to examine how mentors are redefining their role in response to the opportunities and challenges presented by flexibility. Discussion focuses on the wider discourse around models of partnership and considers the effect of key government policies on partnership development in recent years. The paper concludes by highlighting some implications for both the role of the mentor on a flexible ITE programme and the future evolution of the partnership between Goldsmiths College, University of London, and the schools.

No abstract

The authors first met when they both attended a Management Teacher Development Programme and, discovering a common interest in methods of making Management Education less &dquo;compartmentalised&dquo;, decided to carry out a research project into Team-Teaching methods, the findings of which they published in November of last year. In this article they review their data.We thought it could. We were aware that one criticism of Management Education, at this time, was that it was &dquo;compartmentalised&dquo;; that courses were very often split up tidily into neat little boxes with appropriate headings and that subsequently integration was difficult to achieve. On the other hand, a course structure was obviously necessary.It was felt that a contributing factor could be that lecturers might have little or no knowledge of each other's disciplines. There are many obvious advantages of specialisation but there can be disadvantages also.Team-Teaching (for which we produced our own definition, not finding any other)-&dquo;interdisciplinary, integrative presentations-lecture discussions, seminars, case study sessions; indeed any suitable method of teaching by two or more tutors of different disciplines in combination&dquo;, appeared to us to offer many advantages (to both students and tutors) in helping to bring about greater integration.We should make it clear that we did not believe it to be the method nor the only method, but a very important aid which could certainly be used in conjunction with, for example, projects-individual and group varietieswhich are, by their very nature, interdisciplinary. TESTING OUR THEORIESWe decided to test our theories and carry out an investigation into TeamTeaching-its extent, mcthods of usage, and its perceived value in Management educational spheres, and, to produce a report.It was not intended that this report would be &dquo;significant&dquo; in a statistical sense, although we hoped naturally enough, that our work would have practical value.Basically, our investigation involved the use of two methods. Firstly, by jointly conducting a series of teaching &dquo;practices&dquo;-lectures, lectures/discussions, discussions and so on and evaluating these by self analysis and mutual criticism, and also by obtaining &dquo;feed-back&dquo; from our &dquo;guinea-pigs&dquo;.

My research draws on data from focus group interviews with student-teachers 1 which took place near the end of a one-year initial teacher education course. One group was studying to become teachers of secondary English, and the other secondary drama teachers. Both took part in a 'diamond twelve' activity highlighting different perspectives on the content and purpose of drama in the English curriculum. The article explores how the participants construct the relationship between their two subjects, and raises questions about the nature and relevance of the continuing association between drama and English that is enshrined in the National Curriculum for England and Wales.