A recent candidate for trainer certification, Livia Calice, wrote the following (somewhat edited version) as part of the introduction to the part of her application which described using a case study for teaching purposes in a training setting. We found that it fit in well with this letter and quote it here with her permission.

Writing to Learn
I learned a great deal in writing about my interactions with this FI student. The model [for the writing] seemed simple enough — what did I see, what did I do; what did the student do? So much happens simultaneously between practitioner and client.
I found that the writing of this kind of text poses a kind of translation problem. In abstracting my experience into text, I could see exactly what I understood and could articulate, and what I could not. Writing forced me to rethink and represent aspects of my work — translating movement, timing, orientation, quality, verbal, and non-verbal interactions from the multidimensional world of lived experience into written discourse.
The usefulness of this kind of text for me was that once I had written it, I could re-read it. On re-reading it, I could see more clearly what I focused on and what I omitted. I could understand better how I worked and how the student learned. I could see clearly in the text how the interactions of the lesson supported the student's sensory-motor learning.
And, I found open questions.
In a community in which we are in the process of establishing supervision and mentoring, it would be useful for new practitioners to have concrete examples of how they work to discuss with their mentors. You need to have gone through a process of self-reflection before you can know what to ask a mentor. For a text to be useful, it doesn't matter what you think about your lesson; what is important is to have a textual rendering of what you have done.