Hi Jackie,

Many thanks for your comprehensive review. I feel as always very priviliged to have such wonderful professionals of your experience review and critique my work.

I am pleased with your overivew interpretation of my exploration of tools and frameworks as a means to try and improve my practice and learning and in so doing to influence the learning of others in this complex field. I struggled so much during the research process - so it is quite wonderful to communicate these struggles and recieve feedback from you, Ram and Jack.

I am particularly grateful for your detailed editorial suggestions and I have addressed these as follows:

1. The length of the paper - in fact I had shortened the paper after Ram's review - you have reviewed the first draft Jackie - but in the meantime I did actually edit out sections from the beginning as you have suggested, so I hope that this reads better  -

2. Complete edit - I have gone through each of your editing suggestions and applied them across the paper -

3. Other voice validation - again I had revisited the validation section after Ram's review and included more evidence of  other voice validation from my data. However I took the opportunity on reading your review Jackie to revisit the full text of the paper as well as the validation section again - and to substantiate my claims with more references to the discourse /interactions/ artefacts containing other voices  - peers/ tutors/ partners - voices that were instrumental in helping me to evaluate the quality of my work  and influence throughout the cyclical research process.

4. Website and video links have now been updated

5. Photos/ audios/ videos have been integrated throughout the doc with descriptors as you suggest. 

Thank you again for your time, consideration and guidance,

Best wishes,

Mary