This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 21 November 2014, At: 09:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20

A Case Study of Democratic Learning in TeacherEducationClive Harber a & Roland Meighan aa Faculty of Education , University of BirminghamPublished online: 02 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Clive Harber & Roland Meighan (1986) A Case Study of Democratic Learning in Teacher Education,Educational Review, 38:3, 273-282, DOI: 10.1080/0013191860380307

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013191860380307

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1986 273

A Case Study of DemocraticLearning in Teacher Education

CLIVE HARBER & ROLAND MEIGHAN, Faculty of Education, University ofBirmingham

ABSTRACT Students training to be teachers on a one year post-graduate course arepresented with a choice of course methodologies. This paper is a case study of onegroup that chose to operate as a democratic learning co-operative. The students wrotetheir own syllabus, selected teaching methods, shared the tasks of teaching andorganising course sessions, located appropriate resources and evaluated the outcomes.The tutors were able to take on the roles of participant observers and to monitor theevolution and development of the course. The efficacy of this approach in preparingteachers for work in local secondary schools is discussed.

Introduction

Recent HMI documents on teacher training have commented on the need for lesstutor-directed learning. In Teacher Training and the Secondary School HMI statedthat,

Many course programmes depend heavily on the set lecture, with theensuing tutorial almost equally dominated by the tutor. However soundthe precepts expressed on the matter of teaching methodology, theexample offered sometimes presents students with models remarkablysimilar to those criticised in the report as prevalent in schools. Much ofwhat is said about note-taking, passive listening, and restricted readingapplies with equal force to the experience of many students. Practice ofthis kind transmits to them a clear message about the roles of teacher andlearner. This will go far to determine their own practice... There is scopefor more small group work which genuinely involves student participationand for less reliance upon the set lecture and the tutor-dominated seminar.(1981pp.1l/12).

HMI further stated in Teaching in Schools: the content of initial training that,intending teachers benefit most from being taught in a way which encour-ages them to develop good habits of independent study, to adopt anexperimental and practical approach to problems and to foster a spirit ofenquiry which remains with them throughout their lives... Courses oftraining should therefore be under-taught rather than over-taught, andbased on well controlled and assessed guided study and experiment ratherthan on a didactic approach. (1983 pp. 12/13).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

274 C. Harber & R. Meighan

As tutors involved in the initial training of teachers on a PGCE Methods Course inSocial and Political Studies we agree with these statements and feel that it might behelpful to others involved both in teacher training and other areas of highereducation if our attempts to put these ideas into practice over the last eight yearswere described and explained. The major part of this article is concerned with acase study of a particular group. However, a general introduction to the ideasdiscussed here can be found in Boardman, Fitzgerald, Meighan & Rutherford(1980) and Rutherford, Fielding, Meighan & Sparkes (1979). A historical overviewis provided in Meighan & Harber (1985) while the particular relevance of theseideas to courses involving political education is discussed in Harber & Meighan(1986).

Course Structure

The methods part of the PGCE course at Birmingham University's Faculty ofEducation takes place on a Thursday morning and all day Friday for the last eightweeks of the autumn term, after the students have completed a three weeks 'schoolexperience', and for two full weeks during the summer term. At the first of theThursday morning sessions the students, varying between 12 and 15 in number, arepresented with a choice of possible course structures. These are:

(i) the traditional, authoritarian tutor-led course where content and method isdecided by the tutor;

(ii) a consultative model where the tutor gives permission for a certain part of thecourse to be decided by the students, though in consultation and by negotiationwith the tutor;

(iii) an individualised model where students work on their own and devise theirown study programmes using resource banks and study folders;

(iv) a democratic learning cooperative model (die) where students have the poweras a group to decide what and how they should learn.

It is the purpose of this article to focus on this fourth possibility and thus the ideaof a die requires some further expansion. However, it ought to be noted at thispoint that when only part of the group opt for a die then the remainder haveoperated (iii) above, the individualised mode. In the case of a die the group as awhole draws up their own agenda and decides their own priorities. There is aconsiderable amount of negotiation needed before a course plan takes shape so thatthe interests of the group can be fully taken into account. Tutors take on the role offacilitators, advisers and senior learners. They are senior, however, in their know-ledge of resources and contacts rather than in having a series of 'right' answers.They are one voice among a number in the many discussions that characterise thisform of learning. It is important to note, however, that the mode of operation is notcompletely collective in that preparation of sessions will probably mean the groupdeciding on a division of labour so that individuals or pairs work on particularaspects before the topic is discussed by the group as a whole.

Both the idea of choice of type of course and, if chosen, the die, are based on aphilosophy of education which believes in the maximum possible participation oflearners in the education process. It is essentially a democratic theory of educationwhich seeks to share power, preferably at both institutional and classroom level,between tutors and students and between teachers and pupils. Its intellectual origins

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Democratic Learning in Teacher Education 275

are many but can perhaps be traced in education more specifically to Russell(1916), Mich (1971) and Freire (1972). More recently White (1983) has made apowerful case for matching the rhetoric of democracy to the practice of education.In higher education non-authoritarian and democratic group work is a recurrenttheme in Jaques (1984) while at school level interesting work has been done byWatts (1977, 1980) and Toogood (1984). The ability to facilitate such a choice isbased on the existence of a comprehensive resources bank for teaching Social andPolitical Studies and a network of local and national contacts developed throughregular involvement with schools and active membership of the Association for theTeaching of Social Sciences.

During the initial discussion in the PGCE group as to the method of learning tobe chosen, the students are given a specimen contract for a democratic learningcooperative (die) which, if they decide to adopt the approach, can be used to thinkabout ways of proceeding. It is as follows.

Democratic Learning Cooperative

Possible principles of procedure:

(a) that we adopt a self-conscious research approach to our own teaching-learningsituation;

(b) that we seek to examine and practice in our teaching-learning differentstrategies and roles, e.g. inquiry-discovery strategy, neutral chairperson, etc.;

(c) that while the focus of much of our work will be individual, we should shareour own work with the group, for our mutual benefit; and

(d) that we should therefore accept responsibility for the work as a group;(e) within that group-responsibility we should seek to understand through mutual

self-criticism;(f) that we see our primary aim as being competent, not right;(g) that the tutors should be seen as resources for the group, and that seminars on

their 'instructional input' should be chaired by members of the group in turn;(h) that the group should decide which speaker to invite to address it and/or

which films/tapes it wants to hire, or how else it will spend its time;(i) this 'contract' should be reviewed at the end of each term;(j) each course member (including the tutors) will undertake to write a short

evaluation of the group's work to be circulated to each member at the end of eachterm;

(k) that we use the experiences of previous courses as a source of ideas for coursecontent;

(1) that a group logbook be kept of work completed, planning decisions andsession papers;

(m) that each session shall have a chairperson, a secretary and a contributor(s) orleader(s) or organiser(s).

A Case Study

(a) Tutors as Participant Observers

While such a contract suggests the bare bones of the idea, a better feel of the way itmight operate and the issues surrounding its operation is provided by an account of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

276 C. Harber & R. Meighan

one in action. The following account is based on participant observation of the1983/4 group. As Cohen & Manion (1980, p. 103) have pointed out, participantobservation is particularly suitable for many of the problems faced by the educa-tional investigator because "The task of the educational investigator is very often toexplain the means by which an orderly social world is established and maintainedin terms of shared meanings". They go on to note two inherent advantages ofparticipant observation which are relevant to the present study. First, that theinvestigator is able to discern ongoing behaviour as it occurs and is able to makeappropriate notes about its salient features. Secondly, that because case studyobservations take place over an extended period of time, the researcher can developa more intimate and informal relationship with those he is observing, generally inmore natural environments than those in which experiments and surveys areconducted. However, as Lofland (1971) has suggested, it is important to record thenotes as quickly as possible after observation since the quantity of informationforgotten is very slight over a short period of time but accelerates quickly as timepasses. The notes for this case study were normally taken by both tutors duringgroup sessions or occasionally straight after. The tutors also compared and dis-cussed notes immediately after each session. Thus, apart from the obvious problemof subjectivity in participant observation, the case study is at least not based onfaulty memory. That the note-taking was happening was discussed with the grouptwo weeks after the decision to operate as a cooperative. The group agreed both thatexisting notes should be kept and that the practice should continue. The role oftutors as participant observers did not seem to affect the working of the group inany discernable way.

(b) Initial Reactions

Initially the group seemed hostile to the idea of a cooperative, feeling that therewere vital matters upon which the tutors were experts and which only they couldimpart. The initial reaction was to take the 'safe' road of a consultative mode. Twomembers of the group, however, were uneasy, reflected upon the possibilities duringthe Thursday evening and came to the conclusion that they could be missing aconsiderable opportunity of avoiding "the same old pedagogical style we had allsuffered under before and of taking a final chance of making a considerablecontribution to our own education and making the teaching course significant andrelevant to ourselves".

The two students concerned therefore drew up and produced a duplicated sheetof paper listing the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the previous day's decision.It began by asking the question: what is education? Is it acceptance of the views ofothers or is it discovery and argument? It noted a general unhappiness with theteaching methods that had previously been experienced in secondary and highereducation and argued that in a cooperative, presentation would be by students nottutors, and this would recognise that students have as much to contribute to theirown education as anyone else, that students would be open to more searchingquestions as individuals and that interaction would be enhanced because of a morerelaxed atmosphere. The document also argued that such a method would bringgreater relevance because it would enable students to begin to answer their ownquestions, queries, problems etc. about education and there would be less danger ofreceiving one interpretation or travelling in only one direction. Moreover, it would

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Democratic Learning in Teacher Education 277

be an original experience that would differ from previous educational experience inthat it would encourage students to use their own initiative, develop a greater senseof responsibility and lead to greater confidence. It stated "teaching involvesdecision-making:—now is as good a time as any to start".

The discussion that ensued centred on two main arguments. First, the feelingexpressed by some students that the tutors had a certain body of knowledge thathad to be imparted and that the group would suffer if this did not happen. Againstthis it was argued by other members of the group that there are other sources ofvalid knowledge and that the tutors would still have an important role to play asresources for information, contacts, resources, etc. What would change would bethe relationship of reliance prevalent in a tutor-directed course where there is aconsiderable danger that if the tutor is seen as having the 'right' answers in certainspecific areas this authority transfers to all the educational questions that are raisedregardless of the tutors competence in these other areas. A second problemconcerned the fact that one of the students had experienced a cooperative whichhad failed while she had been on an undergraduate course and she related theproblems that had been experienced. Further discussion, however, revealed that thestudents had had a cooperative forced upon them. Consequently the students'reluctance showed in lack of enthusiasm and poor preparation. The student inquestion recognised that if the group consciously chose this method and there wasagreed commitment that it could perhaps be organised successfully.

(c) A Feasibility Exercise in Planning a Course

The argument on cooperative or not drifted into the question of the precisedifference the students would make if they had drawn up the timetable that hadbeen planned by the tutors. From this a timetable emerged that way planned by thestudents.

Some sessions from the original timetable were kept, especially those involvingvisitors, but with the difference that in these sessions the students would now takeresponsibility themselves for receiving the guests and preparing for the visit. It wasalso agreed to timetable a 'review of progress' for three weeks into the term in orderto monitor developments. The nature of other sessions were completely changedand a preliminary division of labour agreed regarding research for the early sessionsthat had been planned.

The initial discussion of the first session of the cooperative again concernedorganisational procedure. It was decided that somebody would take minutesthroughout each session and that these would be reproduced so that everybodycould have a copy. More significant, however, was what was not decided. Nodecision was taken on the matter of who, if anybody, should chair meetings. Onemember of the group commented afterwards that he thought this slowed mattersdown and was very inefficient. "Individuals were reluctant to impose their authorityon the proceedings (for fear of contradicting the ethos of the cooperative) andinstead the group had to wait until a general consensus of opinion emerged that itwas time to get something done". Another issue that was not resolved at this stagewas the role of the tutors. One student later reflected, "In my view it was at thispoint that we made our first mistake, that is, not drawing up a contract. Such adocument should have contained directives on (most importantly) the role of our

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

278 C. Harber & R. Meighan

tutors in co-op sessions. The issue was the subject of much discussion at co-opreview meetings".

(d) The Early Experiences of the Cooperative

The first session of the cooperative that then took place was concerned withmethods and syllabi in teaching politics. The members of the group responsible forthis session at this early stage, relied on the tutors to provide material on this topic.The format was also quite formal with one student at a time introducing his or herarea of responsibility in the form of a talk. Once the session was underway,however, discussion warmed up a little and spread into the realms of democraticschooling and the justification for political education. Overall, the first session wasperhaps a little pedestrian as the group gradually established its modus operandi.

The following morning the group were to cover syllabuses and methods insociology and social studies. However, the meeting was again prefixed by organisa-tional matters. The minutes of the previous day's meeting were not available andthe member responsible was chided by the others. Peer group pressure can be amuch stronger incentive to get something done that tutor admonition. They alsodecided to have tutors present as their ideas and advice could be beneficial. Thematerial on syllabuses and methods was presented and discussed in a similarfashion to the session before except that one of the presenters was actually teachingan evening class in 'O' level sociology and her current experience of teaching amajor syllabus was of great benefit to the group, including tutors. It was also thefirst clear cut example of the advantages of encouraging students to participatemore fully in bringing their own knowledge and expertise into discussion. More-over, in terms of method the increasing willingness of group members to contributeto discussion was also becoming apparent.

The afternoon session on social education further exhibited the tendency forstudents to start to use their own experience as well as material provided by thetutors. Examples of social education courses and practices culled from the schoolexperience were presented in handout form on or on the OHP and discussedcritically. During this session the group again operated without a chairperson withthe resulting benefit of very free and open discussion but with the negative effect ofdiscussion occasionally breaking down into two or three smaller groupings.

The next Thursday's session was devoted to a visit to a Development EducationCentre and on the Friday morning the tutor responsible for taking notes wasteaching on another course. Nevertheless, a full picture of how the group wasfeeling about its mode of operation appeared at the 'Review' session on the Fridayafternoon. One major problem aired was the feeling that because of the volume ofinformation presented by individuals there was still too much of a seminar feel tosessions and it was agreed that talks/handouts should be more concise to providemore room for discussion and as much as possible would be provided beforehandto minimise 'lecturing'. However, stricter time allocation was needed in order tocover the range of material that had been prepared. Did this require a chairperson?The group decided that this might tend to reduce equality in discussion and insteadagreed to try to be more self-controlling and only to use a chairperson as a very lastresort (which in fact never happened). The tendency for one or two members of thecooperative to arrive five or ten minutes after the allocated time was also discussedand again provided a clear example of self-regulating group pressure. Finally it was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Democratic Learning in Teacher Education 279

agreed that the planning of future sessions was taking up too much time in theexisting sessions and hence one lunchtime a week was allocated as a planningmeeting. On the other hand there was also general agreement on the benefits.Students were contributing to discussion a lot more than they had ever donepreviously; they had got to know each other a lot more quickly; commitment washigh (a number spoke of the feeling of guilt if work didn't get done) and the groupwas covering material it felt it had chosen for its relevance.

The visiting speaker that had been timetabled for the following Thursday was atthe last minute unable to come so the session was postponed. Instead the groupchose to examine the problem of looking for a job and handling interviews. Thebulk of this session consisted of the group organising a series of mock interviews bydividing itself into two—one half as a panel of interviewers and the other asindividual candidates for a job. The panel drew up a list of questions that mightwell be asked to a social and political studies candidate and the mock interviewstook place. A mood of amusement soon gave way to one of nervousness andseriousness as the interviewing panel stuck to its role. As a result there was quite asigh of relief when the interviewing ended and discussion ensued. This sessionindicated the growing commitment, self reliance and self confidence of the group.The sudden discovery that a speaker couldn't come did not tempt the group to taketime off or throw them for ideas. Instead the time was used constructively toprovide insights into the type of interview that most would have to face.

(e) The Group Reviews the Tutors' Role and its own Pattern of Activity

The next day was devoted to a detailed and intense discussion of three themes ofthe hidden curriculum debate—race, class and gender—and to practical classroomstrategies for dealing with these issues. As usual the material was prepared andpresented by using material from the students themselves, the tutors, the courseresources bank, the library, etc. as background. Towards the end of this session, andfollowing a discussion of the neo-Marxist critique of education, one student againraised the question of the role of the tutors. This was not so much that the tutorswere saying too much, rather that too much authority was attached to what theysaid. The heated debate that followed considered whether or not the tutors shouldbe excluded, whether or not the authority issue had been re-awakened simply as aresult of dealing with a particular debate with which they were more familiar orwhether or not the problem lay in the consciousness and perceptions of some of thestudents, long socialised into seeing teacher/lecturer as the expert in all matters.Group opinion tended to favour the idea that tutors shouldn't be excluded andshould have an equal say but the process of de-mystification would be helped if thetutors sat apart and so couldn't be construed as forming a 'lobby' for a particularviewpoint as their opinions were often close to one another's. At this point it isworth noting the problem of a change in role for tutor as well as students. It is noteasy for a tutor used to controlling discussion, giving out ideas and information andgenerally having the largest say, to abdicate this role and for a much larger share ofthe time to simply keep quiet. It requires considerable effort and self discipline andis a constant reminder to be patient with students who are also learning new roles.

The following Thursday morning's session was based around a video that lookedat the idea of home-schooling as an alternative to, and reflection of, the currentnature of state schooling. However, two of the students also provided their own

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

280 C. Harber & R. Meighan

valuable input. One student had visited a Steiner school and described theirphilosophy and mode of operation, while another had worked in a local, democrati-cally organised 'free-school' for a year. The experiences of various members of thegroup therefore provoked a lively discussion on non-authoritarian education. Bycontrast the Friday had a very industrial/vocational feel to it. The group haddecided to look at the whole nature of pre-vocational education and the possibilitiesfor social and political education within it. On their own initiative, four of thestudents had phoned a local college and arranged to interview a lecturer responsiblefor this area. Their findings were reported back to the group for discussion. Anothermember of the group had gone back to the school where he had done his teachingexperience to collect material on the new TVEI scheme which was reproduced forgroup discussion. The afternoon session dealt with the issue of unemployment bothhow to teach about it and its implications for education. The discussion thatensued, while full and enthusiastic, again highlighted a consequence of not havinganybody chairing the meeting. Some members of the group criticised the tendencyfor small group, rather than whole group, discussion to occur. Others, however, feltthat the lack of a rigid structure was constructive. One member of the group feltthat there was too much consensus of opinion—there was a danger that individualswho disagreed on certain points would be steamrollered into the majority opinion.As one student put it afterwards, "During some of the co-op sessions a 'blanket ofconsensus' seemed to descend, should anyone 'dare' to disagree they were anihi-lated by the majority. This was a definite problem and one which future 'co-op-ers'should be wary of. The group felt that there might be some truth in this andresolved to be more careful in encouraging viewpoints critical of their own.

(f) Some Joint Sessions with Another Group

Most of the next week's sessions were shared with another, tutor-directed, methodsgroup and consisted of a visiting speaker on the Understanding Industrial SocietyProject and a workshop session on games and simulations. During both sessionsthere was a marked contrast between the two groups of students in terms ofenthusiasm and motivation, confidence and critical awareness. This may have hadsomething to do with the selection but the students did comment that they thoughttheir attitudes had been affected beneficially. As one put it, "Because I was incharge of my own learning, because I did the work myself, I felt fulfilled andsatisfied by what I had done. Because I had been surrounded by people who wereinterested in what they were doing, people who were interested in me and valuedmy opinion—I gained in confidence".

For the following two Thursdays', visits by teachers were scheduled, one by alocal teacher who had recently written a report on multi-cultural education andassessment in the social sciences for the Schools Council and another by previousmembers of the social and political students methods group who were now teachingin the area and could be quizzed on life 'at the chalk face'. During both of thesesessions the visitors were received and questioned by the students without the needfor tutors to take a formal role. In fact these and other 'outsiders' commented onthe discursive skills of the group and the sense of committed participation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

Democratic Learning in Teacher Education 281

(g) A Video-taped Meeting of the Cooperative

The final Friday was taken up with a visit from an Education Welfare Officer whichwas organised and introduced by one of the students prior to discussion. Like othersessions on the course organised by students, the tutors as well as the studentslearned much about the nature and problems of the job. The afternoon sessionfollowed what by then had become the usual round-table format in a discussion onsocial and political learning within Active Tutorial Work. It included input from anumber of students who had been involved with it on their first teaching practice orwho were about to be involved with it on their next. It also included a visitor fromBirmingham Young Volunteers Social Education Project who talked on the role ofBYV in fostering social education through Active Tutorial Work in Birminghamschools. The group had asked one of the tutors to set up the visit but tookresponsibility themselves for meeting and interviewing the visitor.

This session was put on video and viewing after the event two hallmarks of thisparticular cooperative stand out. First, the mixture of humour and serious discus-sion, suggesting that the students found this an enjoyable as well as useful methodof learning. As one student put it "everyone concerned had a lot of fun—isn't thatwhat learning should be about anyway?" Secondly, the equality and free flow ofcomments and ideas around the table. By this stage tutors' opinions were takenseriously along with everyone else in the group but as neither had been involved inActive Tutorial Work more weight was attached to the views of those that had. Thegroup seemed to have developed a democratic atmosphere in which opinions couldbe expressed freely and which was ready to recognise that expertise and experienceexisted but that this varied according to the topic being debated and that tutors didnot have a monopoly of it in all areas.

Conclusion

How did this method of learning equip the group for teaching itself? The studentsapproached the main teaching practice with considerable confidence and this wasremarked upon by the teachers in the schools. Since the students were used to selfreliant learning, i.e. making decisions about what to learn and how and assemblingthe appropriate materials, they appeared to transfer these behaviours to school withminimal nervousness. Through teaching each other valuable experience and confi-dence in public speaking had been gained. They were also used to workingcooperatively and so fitted into team situations with teachers with relative ease.

One of the students from the group attempted to implement a democraticapproach during teaching practice and reported this in her evaluation of the PGCEcourse,

On teaching practice I attempted something of this nature with a group ofone year sixth formers 'the yobs' as their teacher affectionately describedthem. The experiment worked and their motivation increased tenfold. Thework they produced together was of a very high standard and I am surethat they learnt much more than they would have from 'transmission'teaching. When I left, the students said they had enjoyed having mebecause I had given them responsibility and had valued their opinions.They had taught themselves and were proud of it!

Overall, the aim of this case study has been to show that a die can work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014

282 C. Harber & R. Meighan

successfully with particular groups who choose to work in this way. Other groupsmight choose other ways of operating which might suit them better. It is not apanacea for overcoming all the problems of teacher education but simply a methodof learning that should be given serious consideration before acceptance or beforerejection in favour of an alternative.

Correspondence: Clive Harber and Roland Meighan, Faculty of Education, Univer-sity of Birmingham, P.O. Box 363, Birmingham B15 2TT, England.

REFERENCES

BOARDMAN, D., FITZGERALD, T., MEIGHAN, R. & RUTHERFORD, D. (1980) Innovation and evalua-tion in methods courses, in R. ALEXANDER & J. WHITAKER Developments in PGCE Courses(Guildford, SRHE).

COHEN, L. & MANION, L. (1980) Research Methods in Education (Beckenham, Croom Helm).FREIRE, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London, Penguin).HARBER, C. & MEIGHAN, R. (1986) 'Democratic method in teacher training for political education,

Teaching Politics, 15, pp. 179-187.ILLICH, I. (1971) Deschooling Society (London, Penguin).JAQUES, D. (1984) Learning in Groups (Beckenham, Croom Helm).LOFLAND, J. (1971) Analysing Social Settings (California, Wadsworth).MEIGHAN, R. & HARBER, D. (1986) Democratic learning in teacher education: a review of

experience at one institution, Journal of Education for Teaching, 2, pp. 163-172.RUSSELL, B. (1916) Principles of Social Reconstruction (Hemel Hempstead, Unwin).RUTHERFORD, D., FIELDING, R., MEIGHAN, R. & SPARKES, J. (1979) Towards democratic teaching

and learning, in: T. BENJAMIN Improving University Teaching (University of Maryland Press).TOOGOOD, P. (1984) The Head's Tale (Telford, Dialogue Publications).WATTS, J. (1977) The Countesthorpe Experience (Hemel Hempstead, Allen & Unwin).WATTS, J. (1980) Towards an Open School (Harlow, Longman).WHITE, P. (1983) Beyond Domination (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

09:

14 2

1 N

ovem

ber

2014