Question: I like the pictures - which make the basic process immediately clear - although I'm mistified by the labels on the arrows.

Answer: The initial scenario design was based on supporting reflective practice. We build on Chitpin's (2006) work in teacher education. In our case, learners focus on specific problems, discuss and reflect on solutions to these problems, implement the solution and discuss other problems this may raise. P1 --> TT --> EE --> P2. P1 is a practical problem from which the students will begin. An example might be "when is tieback surgery in dogs appropriate?" TT is represents a tentative theory that addresses this problem. EE is the process of error elimination, or critiquing the tentative solution to the problem. TT and EE can be seen as representing notions of conjecture and refutation. It is often the case that problems will emerge from this critique and discussion of the solution; these are denoted by P2 and the process beings again.

Chitpin, S. (2006) The use of reflective journal keeping in a teacher education program: a Popperian analysis. Reflective Practice 7(1), 73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940500489757

Question: were students in the same group for practice and for tutorial discussions? Answer: Yes.

Question: Did students, either individually or in groups, make any use of photos generated by another group?

Answer: Tutors told us that an incoming group did use some of the photos collected by the previous group in their work. We're still analysing data so I don't have many more details on this. However, what was very clear is that the tutor was the primary driver and mediator of reflective practice. The students did not engage in reflection of their own accord - they required a structured framework in which to do this.

Although I agree with all the lessons learnt, I don't see how the second and third ones come from what you have said about the case study so far. Were there issues that haven't yet been captured in the case study?

Yes, on reflection there are - we're going to be writing up the work. The lessons mentioned were:

Deep consideration need to be given to how any new technology, and any new practices derived from it fit in with the existing ecology of the HE institute. --> We spent a lot of time working with tutors to ensure that the activities we developed would fit within the structure of how the students are already trained. Additionally, there is an existing technological infrastructure (whiteboards, PCs, WiFi, bleepers, notebooks etc.) to which mobile augment. Sometimes in mobile learning, the mobiles are view as solutions in and of themselves which is not often the case.

The learning activities must be part of students' everyday practice. In terms of deep embedding with the Institute, one tutor commented that it "needs to have critical mass". --> Basically, related to the above regarding existing practices, students are already so busy that any new technology and associated learning activity must help them with what they are doing. If there is extra workload in doing so, take-up is likely to be low.

I just had a quick glance at your publications list. On representing learning designs, you might find our Learning patterns project of interest: http://lp.noe-kaleidoscope.org/details.html.