by clicking here. It is a 9.9 Mb file and will take some time to download

AnalysisOn completing the re-reading of the IMs (appendices 2-6; appendix 1 is left as a raw artefact)and counting up the instances of each highlight occurring, it is interesting that the following dataare returned:HighlightInstances836624180I was surprised when I completed this exercise that the rank order that was produced followedexactly the order in which I wrote down the questions in the tutorial with Glynn. It suggests thatpeople had a significant impact on my professional learning - in educational technology terms,they were pedagogical agents. Learning appears to be nearly three times more frequent athought than the times or places about which I wrote.This also suggests that I was not at all thinking of the reasons why I did something or consciousof why it occurred. I do not appear to attribute any causality in the IMs, other than need. Giventhat I had already decided to explore the IMs by the themes of the emerging framework, it isconvenient that the next section begins with an analysis of what each IM evinced about 'need'.Most striking is that the reflections in section 4.1 (a-e@t 1 ) are much more conscious of theimpact of N-ness, which may be precisely because they are written at more like t 1.5 when theframework was embedding in my mind. This analysis, which I hitherto alluded to as a-e@t 2 ,might be more reasonably described as a-e@t 3 . In other words a third stage removed from theincidents themselves with the reflections at 4.1 much more theoretically-imbued than I wanted tobelieve.227Simon Hughes Ph.D. Thesis (October 2012)