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

This conclusion to chapter 4 is an attempt to do just that. The conclusions set out in chapter 5are over-arching conclusions to the whole study and seek to point up ways forward for furtherresearch and development, practitioner adoption and to make the case for an originalcontribution to the field. It should be noted that with three further years' study, the process isinevitably different from that conceptualised above, as an outcome of the extensive impact onmy thinking caused by engagement in the process. Here is a short reflection I wrote in about2009 which evidences this (as in the paragraphs above, I have added into this latest edition, thecoding schema that has evolved out of the on-going developmental work).IM3 seems to present signifiers of each of the four confluent strands of literature. Itshows clearly similarities with the first two IM’s where there was demonstrable needto acquire knowledge, skills and understanding (N 1 ) and the exploitation of priorknowledge (N 2 ). It also signifies an underlying logic as it fits the theoreticalframework perfectly, evincing all the key characteristics. Furthermore, the artefactspresented in appendix 1 (pp. 334-336) show clearly the launch pad for futureprofessional work where I was embedding the findings of this professional learningjourney in new settings and contexts. Above all, the impact on my professional andpersonal self was incalculable. If learning is change...Analytically, reflecting on IM3 now (and in the light of all that has been learned) leads me toattenuate the output accordingly.Of greatest note is that the significance, relevance and evidence of N 3 (in this IM) outweighs thatof N 1 , N 2 and N 4 . This raises the question of the proportionality of the framework. Far from272Simon Hughes Ph.D. Thesis (October 2012)