Diana Laurillard indicated that this section so far did not change that much despite a number of comments.

Jan Derry remarked that all of these questions are about "how can technology do X, Y and Z", but she is concerned about how much more do we need to understand about the nature of knowledge or the nature of context if we are to design technologies to be effective in learning. One of the frustrating things over the many years is that everybody tends towards the former questions without reaching a level of destillation that we would want to achieve. As a research question, this could be phrased along the lines of "what aspects of knowledge and context do we need to understand better" - in relation to technology. Also, what maps of historical and personal relationships do we have in mind when engaging in multinational and multidisciplinary research communities.

Diana Laurillard agreed that the TEL question always gets addressed from the technology viewpoint, so framing the question from a different angle, such as how can we a better understanding of learning, communities, etc., challenges the *technology* and enables us to use the technology better or more effectively.

Paul Davey raised the cultural aspects inherent in the running and management of multinational/multidisciplinary teams that would also need to be adressed. It almost would need a kind of meta-research to learn how people interact in different countries and cultures, especially in a network such as Kaleidoscope.

Diana Laurillard took that point forward and highlighted that understanding such aspects challenge that understanding what enables you to get beyond your cultural boundaries. The input of anthropologists and sociologists is therefore needed. We also do not have a robust enough theory of pedagogy to cope with the challenge of the technology that is there.

Agreement from Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld.

Diana Laurillard summarised that this angle (driving research from other viewpoints - not technological functionality as the focus) should probably brought in in all of the sections.

Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld highlighted that we should also put in a couple of concrete research questions for the future.