SCIED 552: Science Teaching and Learning Developing Models of Science Teaching

I have been reflecting lately on how an individual’s environment or even scholarly discipline shapes them and impacts the way that they interact with the world. In our Master’s LLED 870 course, there are a whole bunch of reading specialists typically working in Special Education or with Emergent Bilinguals and then there are the SCIED students, but in a lot of cases, the ways we teach both English and Science are similar. This goes against a common narrative I heard and held as a kid. While the content and contexts are different between the two subjects, methods like progressive discourse and maintaining a discussion-based lesson remain points of emphasis for both. While reading the IHLS reading, I found this on page 20: “At present, the Learning Sciences remain a community or field but not a discipline: People in the community retain allegiances to disciplines they call home, whether it is computer science, psychology, design, or any number of other disciplines. The Learning Sciences does not claim to have a monopoly on interdisciplinary approaches to studying education. This quote solidified and organized my rambling thoughts about this. I am sure this isn’t new news, but it was cool to see in a real-world space that best practices for education and learning science are communicated across disciplines.

I also feel that this handbook does a really good job of laying out cognitive and sociocultural theories in rather plain language as well as objectively. While reading through the explanations of a socioculturist vs a cognitivist, I realized that my alignment with sociocultural theory isn’t as straightforward and exact as I had thought. The concept of interaction with others to learn and the word social is extensively scattered throughout the language of sociocultural theories, which nearly eliminates the thought that individual can learn in the absence of others, and something about that just doesn’t sit right with me. I think dichotomy with my head is why I appreciate the conclusion of this writing, saying, “We do not mean to suggest that we are moving, as a field, to one grand unified theory… (IHLS 41). I think I understand why the two sides of the camp can’t mix and mingle ideas, but it is encouraging to see a genuine interest in progress in the field as a whole.

This week’s chapters from the International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2018) focused in several areas within learning sciences. I also acknowledge that I enjoyed this reading more because of its readability. I know that reading heavy, heady academic writings is a muscle I must continue to flex and build- I just liked this one a bit more because I made connections to the material faster.

I also appreciated the history lesson and the statement “It is a definitional feature of the learning sciences to embrace multiple disciplinary approaches to investigating learning and thinking, including anthropology, psychology, sociology, computer science, epistemology, and the history and philosophy of specific disciplines (e.g., the sciences, mathematics, history). Isn’t it lovely how everything is so…related? Zoological institutions profess to be centers for learning science and not only aim to positively effect the conservation education but also consider educating to be a requirement (Patrick & Tunnicliffe, 2013; Rabb & Saunders, 2005). Not only does learning sciences embrace multiple disciplinary approaches- zoos are in the unique position of being made up of multiple disciplines.

So, the authors tell us that epistemic practices are “socially normed activities that people carry out to accomplish epistemic aims such as developing evidence, arguments, [and] theories” and that “people’s specific metacognitive beliefs about whether and how biases and error can enter into scientific observations can affect critical choices about how to conduct observations”. I took this to mean in the most layman of terms that epistemic practices are things people do to add to capital-s word Science and that our experiences (which are always learning experiences, right?) in these epistemic practices can create good or bad effects, can feed into issues that arise from imperfect practices (such as, but far from limited to issues of power or other difficult underlying social structures or otherwise)…

So, for me, an epistemic practice may be the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) conference. I finally made it to a full conference last year (thank you, RPTM) and I would say that the conference is heavily focused around the sharing of research across multiple levels, connecting with other professionals (omg- networking all day), and learning about areas of your field that aren’t quite your area (expand your horizons and your knowledge!). The goal is always to report on and discuss and create more research (with the goals of supporting the housed animal population further and conservation initiatives). But there are biases present across various levels of the conference- some have been checked and discussed, and some are still silently conspicuous.

Gender biases, race/ethnicity biases, and superiority bias (“biases and error”) that exist outside of the context of this conference (conference research… “scientific observations”) have contributed to how this context is shaped and are also self-sustaining (metacognitive beliefs?) and have likely had an effect on how decisions around research are made (critical choices about how to conduct observations)? Am I reaching?

Anyway- I also felt decently in line with the Chapter 4. I see how a lot of it was refresher/further elaboration of summarized points that we have discussed at length in class. I’m still practicing using my academic voice when writing on this topic, but I do see how I wouldn’t have had the language to understand it as well as I (think I) do now. But then there’s the synergy in design bit and I get a little woozy. I follow it but I’d need to map it out by hand to really make sense of the ways in which the theories translate to the real world provided examples.

Fun note: In the chapter 4 intro, when the authors express their desire to not “reproduce those debates”- I’m sure they meant it, but given it was one of our previous readings (The Great Debate), I still sense a little shade.

Chinn, C. & Sandoval, W. (2018). Epistemic cognition and epistemic development. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Routledge.
Patrick, P. G., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2013). Zoo talk. Springer Science & Business Media. (BOOK: All chapters)
Rabb, G. B., & Saunders, C. D. (2005). The future of zoos and aquariums: conservation and caring. International Zoo Yearbook, 39(1), 1-26.

I found this week’s reading of the four chapters from the International Handbook of The Learning Sciences to be a concise, informative description as well as, comparison of the cognitive and sociocultural theories of learning.  The chapters were comprehensible and provided meaningful information specific to their evolution over time, multidisciplinary epistemic research, and fundamental differences.  With us being in the trenches of writing our theoretical framework paper, I found this reading to be particularly helpful as I continue to grapple with these theories and ultimately, where I find myself landing as a teacher amidst all of these experts and their opinions.  I have been thinking a lot about the role of the teacher, student, and classroom environment in my reflections about learning; and the theory in which I most closely align with as an educator of physics.  As opposed to prior readings, my focus this week was more targeted on me as a teacher in the big picture of the learning sciences, versus trying to ‘learn’ and memorize everything about each specific theory’s framework.

That being said, a short history of the learning sciences was encapsulated in Chapter Two in which as one would expect, the big names like Dewey, Skinner, Brown, and Vgotsky, who had significant theoretical contributions, were mentioned.  I have to say however, there were several names mentioned that I was not familiar with and wondered if they would be applicable to future article readings for our class to delve into.  The Table 2.1 on page 20 of this chapter was a nice visual display of the evolution of the learning sciences over time.  I was intrigued by the choice of words “method wars” used as a descriptor of the conceptualized characteristic to show tension between quantitative and qualitative approaches.  As with last week’s readings, taking sides and going to battle seem to be an underlying activity for researchers in this area of study; although coined a debate in their scientific lingo.  This brings me to the handbook’s discussion about synergy and the following question, “Is it possible to reconcile these tensions and support both experimental, a priori contrasts and analyses of emergent, interactional accomplishments? (pp. 38).  I would hope, as a class, we discuss this question because I believe we can take the strengths of both and combine them to help us in designing ways to support learning.

I found Chapter Four of the International Handbook of the Learning Sciences to bring together for me everything we have been discussing and reading.  The structure of outlining the cognitive and sociocultural theories and presenting the approaches to the following; knowing and learning, transfer, and motivation (pp. 35) was a simplistic way for me to think about them in my search for a framework that aligns with my beliefs relative to the role of the teacher, student, and classroom environment.  Herein, from the perspective of Danish and Gresalfi, “sociocultural” studies of learning must focus beyond the individual to include the context in which the individual is interacting (pp. 36).   For me then, I believe my philosophy of learning falls within the social constructivist framework.

I like how when they project about the Learning Sciences they talk about what they anticipate learning sciences will look like in the future on P. 20-21. I thought it was interesting that they really emphasized the community element being the next great step, as I feel that there already is a welll established learning community within the sciences. However, maybe they are more referring to one that is more cross-cutting through the different specific disciplines within? If education is the discipline that is most cross-cutting, how can we as educators be mindful of that in our practices and use our classrooms as ways to facilitate these connections to the benefit of our students?

Reading about epistemic practices, I have some questions about how to handle situativity. IHLS on P.26 writes, “Learning scientists emphasize the situativity of EC, by which we mean that EC can vary (within the same person or group of people) from one situation to another.” Isn’t the goal of research to try and make sure there is transfer across context? Aren’t highly, overcontextualized results ineffective for figuring out the best practices? They list examples of different elements of “resources that can be activated flexibly in different situations are: “knowledge is
stuff transferred from one person to another,” “knowledge is fabricated stuff,” “knowledge is accumulated as lists of facts,” “knowledge involves causal stories,” “knowledge can be created by imagining,” and so on.” (P.26) but I wish they would provide us a little more detail on what exactly qualifies as each for classroom classroom instruction. For example, fabricated stuff comes across very vague.

I feel like this chapter did a nicer job of smoothing the Great Debate than either of the authors did. “However, there is nothing inherently incommensurate between these two foci: one can draw on our understanding of the structure of human mental representation while simultaneously acknowledging that this structure is only part of understanding and predicting learning and activity.” (IHLS 2018, P.40) I mean, short, simple and sweetly explained. It also makes Anderson and Greeno’s dispute look a lot more overblown. Also, the article they use as an example- Danish 2014 (and Gresalfi and Barnes 2015)- maybe we should use it as a reading for class given its relation to how cognitive and socialcultural theory can work together? It sounds fantastic, as IHLS indicates, ” cognitive analyses of individual learning canbe synthesized with a focus on collective activity to better understand how the design of collective activity can lead to new forms of interaction as well as individual outcomes.”

This week’s reading from the International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2018) discussed several different topics within the greater learning sciences community.  The one that especially caught my interest was the discussion in chapter 3 about epistemic cognition and development.  The idea of epistemic practices, “socially normed activities that people carry out to accomplish epistemic aims such as developing evidence, arguments, theories, and so on” (Chinn & Sandoval 2018; Chp. 3, p. 25).  This concept is very broadly applicable to scientific fields and ways of evaluating scientific merit.  This discussion, as well as the quote “people’s specific metacognitive beliefs about whether and how biases and error can enter into scientific observations can affect critical choices about how to conduct observations” (Chinn & Sandoval 2018; Chp. 3, p. 25), brought up something that I’ve seen heavily discussed and partially addressed in astronomy.

In astronomy, it is a very common thing to write and submit scientific proposals for observation time on different telescopes and instruments.  This can be an extremely competitive process, and thus necessitates a sizeable review process that weighs the relative scientific merits of the various proposals.  This process is very much a “socially normed activity” within astronomy that seeks to decide, in the most objective way possible, who is awarded the resources to do their experiments and collect data.  A recent example of the scrutiny of this epistemic practice is the astronomical community seeking to address concerns of gendered biases that are inherent in this review process.  This reflection and analysis of the biases present has led to adoption of dual-anonymous reviews for resource allocation in astronomy (Strolger & Reid 2019).  (By the way, I highly recommend reading their paper!  Multiple agencies and even government entities have approached them about adopting their method!)  I just was excited to be able to make this connection between my field and the learning sciences!

In addition to all of this, research on epistemic cognition brings up the idea of the “learning to learn” education model discussed in A. Brown et al. (1993) (p. 190).  If a schooling environment seeks to prepare its students for the ways of thinking required by various disciplines, then the curriculum that is developed must reflect the differing epistemic ideals and reliable processes for achieving epistemic aims in these different fields (Chinn & Sandoval 2018, p. 29-30).

References:

Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed Expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 188-228). Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Chinn, C. & Sandoval, W. (2018). Epistemic cognition and epistemic development. In Fischer, F., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Goldman, S. R., & Reimann, P. (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Routledge.

This week’s readings were very helpful in providing a brief history of how the Learning Sciences was developed, as well as highlighting differences that we have been talking about recently in class.  The brief history mentions Skinner and Dewey as being influences here, which is probably obvious.  Another person mentioned here is Tolman, and it is said that they are also a behaviorist like Skinner.  Other unfamiliar names to me were Chomsky and Gardner.  I am wondering why we read one person over the other in this class.  For example, why did we read Skinner over Tolman?  This may not be of the utmost importance, but I am still curious about the reason why, if there is one.

The learning sciences also mention synergy between cognitivists and socioculturalists.  This was mentioned a lot in chapter 4.  They mention oftentimes that “the two perspectives can come together in the same work” (p. 37) and when asking if it is possible to reconcile tensions between the ideas in order to experiment, respond with “We believe it is..” (p. 38).  This is something I have been thinking about a lot.  I think this is probably the best way to think about learning, to reconcile these differences and keep researching both.  But, I am wondering what the outcome would be.  What confuses me more is that they mention “We do not mean to suggest that we are moving, as a field, to one grand unified theory.” (p. 41) Isn’t that what would happen though?  If research reconciled these two perspectives, wouldn’t that be what happens?  To me it seems like they are suggesting this, so it is confusing to me that they say this directly.  Does that mean that these two perspectives will always exist, and only be called upon when the time is right?

I wanted to end by thinking about a quote that Scott mentioned Situatists (?) have beef with.  “The cognitive approach should not be read as denying the value of learning in group activity, and the situative approach should not be read as denying the value of learning by individuals working by themselves” To me, this quote was re-iterated in this weeks readings here: “Cognitive perspectives are critiqued for their focus on individual characteristics… Sociocultural perspectives are critiqued for their focus on
context… they often lose the individual due to focus on the collective.” (p. 37).  I am trying to think about why someone in the sociocultural perspective may have beef with this type of suggestion.  I think it is because they are thinking about learning in a social context as doing group activities.  It is too… literal? I am not sure of the word.  I don’t think socioculturalists would say that when they think about learning as being social, they think group activities.  I think when they suggest learning is social, they mean that learning happens when students can talk to each other inside and outside of class, that the relationships they build with instructors and students is important in learning, and that simply being in a room with other learners are important when thinking about learning.  Group activities is not what they suggest. 

After our last class, I was convinced that it was not a possibility to use together the cognitive theory and the sociocultural theory.  After reading this book I am now a little bit confused because they say that it is possible to do it. They also say that there are design examples of how to do it. I would like to understand better how this “putting together” works because after reading the Learning Sciences I am more convinced that I would like to use both theories together. I have the impression that both theories play a role in human learning. I think that the sociocultural theory is what I would use to organize school in general but I think that there may be times when the cognitive approach plays a role. For example, about motivation, the sociocultural theory says that “This shift in the unit of analysis requires examining not whether or how to make people
more motivated, but rather to consider how to reform practices and contexts to invite engaged and motivated participation”  (p.37). I agree with the necessity to have practices that motivate participation but at the same time it is true that students carry with them before even entering the classroom beliefs about their capability and about goals that they have. This has an impact on what they do. I realize a lot of times that a class may encourage my participation but the beliefs I carry with me from outside play a role. For example, here at Penn State where I pay my classes I approach them knowing that I need to learn because I paid, while when I was in Italy where University education was less expensive I approached classes in a “more relaxed” way. I found very interesting that cognitive approaches focus on quantitative data to generalize and quantify while sociocultural approaches focus on qualitative data because “culture is continually created and transformed in the moment, as individuals contribute to and are impacted by their cultural milieu” (p.37). This helped me a lot to understand things that I have seen in Montessori. In that approach based mainly on constructivism, the ideal teacher would gather data every day to quantify them and also the lessons were based on the fact that they had been successful with a lot of students in different places. Because of that they were considered “generalizable” and we were taught that they would work. Even if I found most of the lessons very useful, I was always frustrated by the fact that if a lesson did not work it was not the lesson’s fault because the lesson was “perfect”. This was not true because the context plays a big role and individuals play a big role. This class for sure is helping me to gain awareness about things that I have done in the past without knowing what was behind them.

The International Handbook of the Learning Sciences

This weeks reading was the first four chapters in the International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (IHofLS). I thought these chapters really helped place the literature we’ve been reading in to the larger context of what the learning sciences are. I also found myself reflecting on my own teaching experiences, as I gain these new insights as to what learning is. I will be completely honest, as a college instructor, I never considered studying how people learn as a science. I thought what made a good instructor was somebody who was enthusiastic about the material and was thoughtful about how to present it. But never in my head did I think of it as a science. Which, is absolutely ridiculous, because in fact, I was doing learning science without even recognizing it. I was lucky to have done my MS at a small university where the faculty really thought about how to present the content in ways that would be most beneficial to the students. I taught the same course the duration of my MS degree, and I never once taught it the exact same way. At the end of the semester, the lead faculty and I would discuss what went well and what fell flat. We used a combination of students grades, course evaluations and survey feedback to see where students struggled, then spent time brainstorming and creating new material to try again the following semester. This is all science – that albeit, flawed Dewey scientific method, is what I was doing – asking the question how to present the material best? Collecting the data. Analyzing the data. Experimenting with new material. I guess because this is all so new to me still, it kind of stuck out to me that while I sit here and think ‘oh my gosh, I’m so confused and have no idea what’s going on… learning is a science??’, I actually already knew that.
The first chapter was essentially a review of what the learning sciences are and a quick history of the important folks who have contributed to the field. I thought it was particularly interesting, that even while we have read some historical works this semester, the field itself is very young. I also appreciated the themes at the end of the chapter and two in particular stood out to me. The fifth theme stresses the importance of designing with not for, and acting with not on. I thought this was interesting because you would think that the research that is happening in the learning sciences would be happening with the input of those that would actually be implementing the results. This also highlights my ignorance about how the curriculum in K-12 is chosen, and who gets to decide what and how things are taught? Why isn’t the learning sciences integrated more intimately with these districts. Is that a possibility? What would that look like? The other theme that stood out to me was the sixth – how to thoughtfully consider the issues of social justice and equity in the classroom and the school systems more broadly. This is, I think, the first we have read about equity in education and I think is possibly one of the most important things to consider. Education cannot only serve the few. The quote at the very end gave examples of the important contexts that need to be considered “…the immediate setting in which individuals participate, relationships across the multiple settings that people navigate, the broader cultural, political, economic, and, indeed, ideological belief systems and institutional configurations in which these micro-level settings exist…” (Lee, 2012, pp. 348).

In the last two chapters I thou

I was excited for this reading because it finally sounded useful! When I think of a handbook, I think of an operation manual or a compilation of information and facts on a certain topic. Handbooks are practical and useful to navigate life (e.g. my cryptic crossword handbook helps me decipher clues!) so if Fischer et al. are going to write a handbook on the learning sciences then count me in. While I’m mostly joking about my expectations of this week’s reading, I do think the title of this text is significant and something to remember as we dive deeper into the learning theories herein at play. Also, when I said useful in my opening sentence, the implicit assumption I made is that only texts with information directly relating to my life is worthwhile to read. I did this again, mostly joking, but I am becoming aware of how even my sense of humor might be grounded in situativity?

Chapter 1 was mostly a review, but there was one quote that stood out to me. Hoadley notes that “from an epistemological perspective, Dewey saw ‘an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education’ (Dewey, 1938/1997, p. 20), and advocated for a holistic, pragmatic approach to the science of learning, while behaviorists like Tolman and Skinner saw human experiences as epiphenomenal and an invitation to pseudo-science.” (pg. 12) I hadn’t thought about the relationship between pseudo-science and socio-cultural learning, but I can kind of see what Hoadley, and effectively Tolman and Skinner mean. Learning is messy so measuring it, specifically quantitative, is challenging. There is an underlying assumption built in to Skinner’s thoughts that qualitative science is “pseuedo-science”, which I’m not sure about and makes me feel that kind of white supremacy ickiness but I digress.  I wonder if there are specific challenges to applying (and advocating for) constructivism learning theory to the science classroom, because of how both science and Western education are routed in a respect for only quantitative data?

In Chapter 4, I really appreciated how the authors laid out knowing, transfer, and motivation for cognitive and socio-cultural theories. I specifically found the part about transfer interesting, since we talked a lot in class about this. Danish and Gresalfi point out that any socioculturalist would argue that “we routinely move from situation to situation with little effort or challenge. Thus, the question becomes one of accounting for this cross-situational fluidity.” (pg. 36) So basically obviously once you master tying your shoes, you can tie them anywhere. But it gets more complicated when you start to thing about contextualized learning. So for example, the author went on to talk about how you can account for this discrepancy by focusing “beyond the individual to include the contexts in which information is engaged.” (pg. 37) I guess I’m kind of confused why sociocultural perspectives are criticized for the loss of individuality due to the focus on the collective context, because I thought sociocultural perspective brought to the table that everyone’s learning is contextualized and everyone has prior experiences and everyone is different? I know I’m missing something here…

Lastly, I was intrigued to read about designing from both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives (the how-to part of the handbook…??). After reading that Cognitivists values, I recognized so many of my teaching moves from TAing and tutoring. I would design tricky problems to elucidate specific common misconceptions in a hope to make the topic more engaging. I would have loved “Big Data” to have some algorithm to specify what my students were missing commonly throughout all the problems, so I could generalize that knowledge, return it to them, and have them reapply it until they succeed. One thing I’m currently thinking about, but not enough to expand upon here, is if there is indeed a “right” theory, a best way to structure education let’s say, how might each camp of theorists prove theirs is correct to the other camp? Because I keep thinking ugh if only I could see into the brain to I could quantify EVERYTHING, but scientists always think that, it’s never true, and that would only really be a cognitive assessment. Would the assessments be so fundamentally different that you couldn’t convince the other camp that you’re correct? As I type this out I’m guessing this is what is currently happening…

Even after reading about Lee’s 1995 work on using signifying to teach literary interpretation, I might say this isn’t an authentic practice since it was still taught in the same teacher-students power dynamic method. Instead, the students always had this knowledge; they just didn’t use it because they didn’t know how to. So the solution is better teaching, specifically using real world examples like signifying. When we were talking in class, the part that kind of made sense was the order in which things would be taught in a class. So the “authentic” way is have them explore signifying as a phenomenon and form literacy skills from there, while the cognitive way would be to teach them a list of 10 top literacy skills and have them identify/synthesize/play with them in real African American spoken word texts. But both ways of teaching the lesson are more interesting to kids (I think?) than just reading the list and memorizing/writing random sentences to demonstrate mastery. The legitimate practice is also notable different than “fun sauce” sprinkled on top of a lesson where they write a rap about what they learned. I don’t know what my real point here is, except to deconstruct lesson styles based on theories, maybe.

This week’s reading introduced us to the learning sciences field. In the first chapter of the handbook, learning sciences is described as an “interdisciplinary field that works to further scientific understanding of learning as well as engages in the design and implementation of learning innovations in methodologies and learning environments intended to improve learning processes and outcomes” (p. 3). Later on, Hoadley distills the primary characteristics of LS to be “interdisciplinary, empirical, contextualized, and action-oriented” (p. 16). The most compelling characteristic of these to me is the interdisciplinarity. I find this characteristic interesting because I think it has been present to lesser degree throughout the history of learning theory, however with LS we see it amplified and it becomes not only much more explicit, but a driver of the field as a whole. In the first chapter, the authors describe that inconsistent evidence and phenomena from different disciplines led to a shift towards interdisciplinary work (p. 3). I also found the table on page 20 helpful because while its described purpose was to outline the evolution of the four characteristics of LS over time, it also simultaneously mapped the different theories, movements and shifts we’ve studied in a new way by breaking it into the LS characteristics. 

Spurred by Katie’s observation in her reflection last week, I noticed many papers that we’ve read were mentioned in these initial chapters of the LS handbook and there were many familiar players in chapter 2’s “short history.” I perhaps most strongly noted ties to Vygotsky’s theories involving language, tools and signs, as well as Greeno’s theory of activity systems. On page 1, the authors refer to both of these theories in saying that “By claiming that human learning is a systems phenomenon, we assume that learning is brought about by the coordination of biological learning with socio-cultural knowledge and tool production. (p. 1)” This seems to make sense as LS is self-defined to be highly contextualized and situative. However, the authors of chapter 4 also demonstrate that the field has worked towards some synergy between sociocultural and cognitive approaches, although to be honest I did not find much clarity in their description and examples of synergistic methods. 

Although the chapters we read did not focus much on it, I think that the design of learning environments is the aspect of LS that interests me most. In particular, I loved the tenet of “designing with rather than for, of acting with rather than acting on” (p. 7). I think this is closely tied to the action-oriented and use-oriented nature of LS. 

A final comment: At the very end of chapter 4, we see what I think is one of the first mentions of equity in the papers we’ve read thus far. The authors make the case that context is closely tied to equity in saying that “… in order to unpack the role of context in learning, we have to recognize and begin to address fundamental issues of equity and access…” (p. 41). I hadn’t previously considering the linkage of context and equity, but I think it could inspire some interesting discussion.