TD&T124 Talking design cognition with Amanda Mason

Amanda and I talk about Niekie Blom's fabulous chapter from the Debates in D&T book: Design cognition in design and technology classrooms.

Episode transcript

Mentioned in this episode

Debates in D&T Education, chapter 14.
Niekie Blom

Ciaran Ellis posted a thought-provoking question on LinkedIn recently: Do design decisions involve value judgements?

What do you think? Join the conversation over on LinkedIn and let us know what you think. 

Transcript

Alison Hardy: 0:56

This week's podcast is with Amanda Mason. Amanda is a member of several things I'm doing at the moment, actually, Amanda, I've realised is part of the redesigning DNC project. But for today's podcast, she's here because she's part of the debates in DNC book club. And we're going to talk about one particular chapter, which I'll introduce in a moment. But first of all, over to you, Amanda, just about who you are, where you are, and what you do.

Amanda Mason: 1:20

I'm a secondary school teacher, I teach K stage three and Key Stage Four design and technology and engineering, as specialise or I focus, the key stage for engineering systems or electronics. Our lead lead practitioner within my school as well, an AC T mentor, but fundamentally, I'm a design and technology teacher. And we're about to you based Amanda, and Northeast of England. Our school, yeah, okay. Okay, so we might put a link to the school if you want in the, in the show notes, we'll see how well the podcast goes.

Alison Hardy: 1:55

Is that what you think possibly, that'd be fine. That'd be fine. So the chapter we're talking about is chapter 14, which is designed cognition in design and technology classrooms. It's written by Nickie Blom. The key is over in Ireland, he teaches a teacher training programme. At the University of Limerick, I know that because I go over there and externally examined. So I'm actually going to be seeing Nickie in a couple of weeks time face to face, he was in South Africa. And his work is all about design cognition. So he did this chapter, which is great. And so we're going to talk about some of his thinking about different theories about design, cognition, and how those apply to design and technology. I could drop you in it here, Amanda, and say, you want to do a synopsis of the chapter.

Amanda Mason: 2:52

I can give it a go. So the chapter looks at previous cognitive theories, Lincoln to design and technology and the design theory. Particularly it looks at information processing, where it's all about knowledge, it's all about the designer, using more of a representation than an actual feel for materials. And they don't really have much to do with the Megan process. But then we also are it within the chapter, it also looks at ecological psychology as well. Where would that includes no knowledge for the designer, or for the Mega for the person creating the product, it's all just about having the materials in front of them, and actually working with the materials and taking the design process from that point of view. And then it's also introduces almost like a hybrid, extended design cognition theory where we have where we're, essentially try to combine both of these waves to have the knowledge that understanding the representation, and then being able to try and blend it with the ecological, the actual Magen and then create a more iterative design process from the okay. I don't think that's a bad shot. And I'm sure if Nick, thank you very much. He'd say the same thing. Yeah, it's this idea, isn't it that the information processing one is internal, and then the extended? Now ecological psychology theory is much more external. Yes. And it's and it's more that, in terms of the knowledge, the information processing, one, that knowledge is taught before the design context is given. Whereas in the second one, it's more about the social and material world, and what's going on around in the context. And the emphasis isn't so much on the knowledge that's taught or used within that was kind of my understanding, as well as also suggested that there was no knowledge needed prior to being able to make something and just have to design something was more designed some design something Yes, ahem. But then I'm process was more just having the materials there in front of them, and creating a design with those materials straightaway. And that no prior knowledge of those materials were needed. I think I might. Yeah, I think I think you're right, it was about as being an external activity, I'm just having a look at what it says on page 213. It's about external activity designers interactions with the show social and material environments. And these interactions might include Nicolas, holding, moving, manipulating, gesturing, gesturing, rearranging, drawing, and constructing among others, among others. The idea is that the origin of design ideas and emergent material forms developed from designers interactions with their external environments. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, it's quite different than the information processing

Alison Hardy: 5:57

I mean, my sense is, is that over time, the information processing, theory of design cognition has kind of taken dominance in design and technology. Would you say, would you agree or disagree when you're involved in practice I, I just sit at home and talk about it. But you know, you're, you're in the classroom? Well, because design and technology, especially the level that I teach a key stage four, is a vocational course I don't do the GCSE wrong way with the Welsh board. And that specifications change this year. And now as a result, it is all about knowledge based, it's taken more away from the design element, the Magen element, and it's all about understanding the processes, or understanding the materials and having that knowledge and demonstrating that knowledge, more than actually being able to design and create a product. So yeah, I do think the information processing is does take more of a front seat than what the ecological wonders.

Amanda Mason: 7:04

I do think that's mainly because of all the the subjects may be in the school, it's easier to assess that kind of understanding than it is to assess design. Sometimes when we I am moderating for the example this year. And when we look at design ideas, it's always about how good it looks, as opposed to what information it actually holds. And I think it's really hard to determine what is a good design, as opposed to it's easier to be able to grid and assess if someone understands the materials.

Alison Hardy: 7:40

Right. But that's going off on a whole nother tangent about it is I couldn't take those All right, I can kind of I can kind of go on about some of the things that you've suggested there and hinted at, but that's not what we're doing. We're talking about these two theories. But you've talked about post 14, what about your key stage three? How do you how do you see it there? Do you see it more as the information processing, or more of the ecological psychology or more with the embodied and extended cognition,

Amanda Mason: 8:07

I do think we'll do have a bit of a mix if I'm being honest, because to an extent, so we do have schemes where we are always encouraged to have schemes of work, where we have the development of knowledge, the development of understanding, and then there is a design process. However, I do think our design process is also limited. We are encouraged as teachers to give an example or to model what good looks like. And as a result, when the students then go on to create a design of something, they then use our example, or they use our modelling, to then use that as their basis or their starting point. And almost every time they create a design, it reflects what we've almost done just maybe just a slightly different picture on the front of it, or in the design ideas are always very limited. I think because of that.

Alison Hardy: 9:05

Yeah. So so it's almost like the process that you're taking them through is quite ritualistic is Yeah, right, or? Yeah, I would agree. Yeah. So and this idea about them having an idea that you've done that you show them the beginning, Where's where's that come from? And well,

Amanda Mason: 9:23

a lot of the national curriculum is very open, if I can see that. It doesn't, it does see, and that will have to have microcontrollers within my area will have to show social and cultural issues. However, that that's pretty much it. It doesn't, it doesn't define and so I do have scope to then create my own project. So for me, my year at neither introduced remote control as an ad design the project or the scheme of work, where they create a money music box that really advance the Chinese New Year. So because the focus is on the microcontrollers, and them understanding how to programme and programme them, then the design element is then kind of taken away from them. Because it's like, oh, well, it's going to be this kind of shaped box, and all you're doing is design and what it looks like on the front. So it does limit that design process.

Alison Hardy: 10:20

Yeah. So I would I would argue that's not a design project.

Amanda Mason: 10:23

No, that's a very much a DNA. Yeah, that's a microcontroller programming project. Yes.

Alison Hardy: 10:31

Yeah. Yeah. So that that becomes the other challenge isn't it is discerning when when you're actually doing a design project or when you're actually yeah, you know, something that might cause I'm mainly making which mainly is focusing on them learning processes, and yeah, so they can then apply related design project. Yeah, that's it. That's a constraint all the time, isn't it? Yeah. of time and materials and sort of getting them through Yeah, within the time that you've got, you know, the knowledge that you want them to learn. So it sounds like in some ways, yeah, I do think from my experience and what I've seen in schools and tips, I've spoken to that, that the information processing is more of the dominant. And that's almost I've been a bit of a backlash, I think, to the fact that possibly, the ecological psychology theory was much more dominant previously in the early 2000s. And so we've ended up in this place where you see it, you know, do your either in one camp or the other. And so I kind of quite like Nikki's work about can you think, well, actually, these two can come together, it is internal, it is external. And the work that Richard Kimball and Kay stables did on the hand of mind working together. I mean, that was all about assessment. And we've tried to give opportunities for children to do those things in the assessment activity. You know, it's not gone away, it's always been there. But the national curriculum and different governments have kind of forced us to do different things. And we're currently living in this perception of what it looks like to be knowledge rich. So the the knowledge gets taught first, and then it kind of gets put into a design project, which may or may not be a design project with the best way in the world because of the time constraints. And that's been almost like a backlash to this previous of doing design activities by for want of a better word, maybe discovery. And I think this idea of of Nicky's, and then it kind of links back to Kimberlin stables work. And we're at the hand on the mind together the internal and the external that you need. Both, when when they're designing. Yeah, and it's at which point do you teach the new knowledge? And is, is the design and make activity? Are you teaching them the process of designing? Sure, you can personally? Or are you teaching them different strategies they can use for design and different knowledge, technological knowledge that they can use in a design project? And it's when do you do do you do? Do you front load all of that? Or do you do it as they go along? Or do you work with the children to identify what they need to know? If that makes sense?

Amanda Mason: 13:22

It does, I think we're definitely without without putting people under the bus, we definitely don't work with students individually, to see how we can develop those individually to become designers. And I think that, again, is a time constraint, we do work on a rotation within our school. So I'll see my students for 910 weeks, and then the go to another rotation. And then another teacher sees them and they teach them a different area of Design and Technology, I do think, in other classrooms is against skills based. So it's about building up the skills or graphics, they learn how to use illustrate as a create call for book covers, and game illustration, and so on and so forth. So I do think it's about building those skills. So then later on, when given a brief that can use those skills to then actually be able to apply it to design. So I do think we do set the foundation for that. And I think the more processes that they have a better understanding, then that does help with that design.

Alison Hardy: 14:32

process. Yeah, it's really tricky, isn't it is there's there's a potentially a huge knowledge base isn't the design and technology of processes, skills, you know, sort of the conceptual knowledge, the design, knowledge, technological knowledge, and so on. There's a huge base of it. And it's, and it's where you, as a teacher decide that that there's sufficient, I mean that the children have sufficient but you can't do all of it. By any stretch,

Amanda Mason: 15:00

even in my teacher train. And I remember the person overseeing like the tutor that oversaw the teacher training for our regional area, that would design technology, the subject knowledge, you can never get excellent on that. Because there's just so much with the same science, you can never have excellent science knowledge. Because there's so much. Yeah,

Alison Hardy: 15:22

I think that's I think that's true in most subjects. I think you can think about saying about history and geography, as well. And it's about what's kind of sufficient, isn't it? And so then when you're thinking about the design activities that you're giving pupils, it's kind of planning that knowledge and yeah, that the rotation system, it's sometimes it's a necessary evil isn't out.

Amanda Mason: 15:46

Yeah, there are. I have worked in schools where I've been with the full class for the full year. And I do think that is a better process in some respects. But then at the same time, sometimes when you get a difficult class, it's better to only see them for a short period of time. And then so that the good one is someone else. And then it kind of lessens the sort of burden both the stress the anxiety, that yeah, because it can be tiring sometimes. But we are fortunate than other schools in that we do teach design and technology. Two lessons a week. Yeah, because I know some schools are limited to just the one. So we do have an I do feel a lot of the projects that we create, as well, are always in mind have given them the knowledge needed for the key stage four. So

Alison Hardy: 16:41

what do you think makes you plan a curriculum is looking at the key stage four, think about what that means for key stage three?

Amanda Mason: 16:47

For attainment, reasons, and progress, yes. And two terms of in terms of being a designer, possibly not know,

Alison Hardy: 16:57

but do you see that as a purpose of design and technologies to develop them as designers

Amanda Mason: 17:03

as and when I remember when it was my first year of teaching, and I was all all the going to come in, and they're going to sit around a table, and I'm not going to give them any solutions to anything and I'm going to make them become the solution. They're going to think that their own solutions, and they're not going to have me spoon feeding them this information. And then as the time has gone on, I find myself spoon feeding them more and more information. And I do think if you do become just restrained by all you need to have an example. Or now you need to have this now we need include literacy. Now we need inclusion and numeracy, you need to have a one point will have MFL links in all areas across the school as well. Yeah. And so yeah, so there's always something else that you have to include. And, and there's a huge focus now, with careers, which is definitely needed as well, because it makes it easier to link or give purpose to what they're doing in school, because this is what you'll need if you want to progress this outside of school. But yeah,

Alison Hardy: 18:10

obviously, that's a challenge. And I've kind of talked about this a few times is, I always think I think you're right, I think I think you do need to, within lessons make children aware about different careers and different options. But if we overdo that, we're always at risk of isolating the children who aren't in don't want that from our lessons. You know, so what is it about key stage three, that makes the subject part of a general education, we've really gone off here off the off the chapter. So I'm going to apologise to Nikki. today. Thank you. I'm not talking about design cognition. We're talking about the practicalities around it. Yes. But you have these, you have these theories. But it's like, well, what do you do? You've got them for nine weeks, you've got them? What, two hours a week, 18 hours? You've got a certain bulk of knowledge to get through. Does it have to be a designer make? It's not always are they able to draw on what they've done before in previous lessons with a different teacher? Do you know what they've done? And oh, by the way, Could you could you just talk a little bit of literacy, numeracy and MFL into it and give a bit of crazy advice. So yeah, the practicalities of it all are really tough, aren't they?

Amanda Mason: 19:20

Yeah. Yeah. So if I was just asked you, Allison them, what do you think? Give it a try. We'll edit it later. So if you were to say, we're going to create better designers, or people are evolved, or the teacher but design process, what do you think that would look like?

Alison Hardy: 19:45

I wouldn't do either of those things. What would you do them? So so let me explain why. So firstly, I don't believe design and technology is about creating designers. Right? Okay. I believe design and technology is a key part of a general education. And so if we start talking about creative designers, they're not they're not all going to, I think it's about them, developing the ability to change things around them and be involved in that designing. But I think that goes beyond a career. But I also think it's about them, being able to be part of a technologically diverse world and understanding the impact that technology has on us and we have on it, and how we're part of that as a democracy and cultural and societal aspects as well as the the economic aspects. Sounds very grandiose, but I think you kind of know, you know, kind of where I'm talking about. This is where I put my academic hat on, and I kind of, but no, I don't I don't believe that design and technology is about creating the next generation of designers. I think that's an aspect of it, but I don't think that its entirety. And then you said the second part was about teaching them a design process. Right. Okay. So I don't believe there is a single design process And I don't therefore believe that you can teach one. And I think what does happen is when I've done it when I was teaching, when we plan a scheme of work, we plan it as a linear process, which we all know is false that we don't that, you know, okay, we'll go against what I've just said, that what happens in the way that all of us do design, whether we're designers, or we're just designing, I mean, just to be an army. We don't do it in that linear, I would write a design brief. And then I'm going to do some research. And I'm going to write a questionnaire. And I'm going to do this, and I'm going to write it. So we're going to do it like that. But we end up planning it like that. And then what happens is we think is the teacher that the pupils are learning, the design process or a process of designing? Because that's how we've planned it. But at no point have we made it explicit. So there's a couple of things. I don't believe there's a linear process, I don't believe there is a single design process. And I don't believe sometimes when we're planning our lessons that children are actually learning that false idea. Anyway, so that's me off on my high horse. You see, you see, this is the problem. This is why I don't allow people to ask me questions, because I'll just go off on one. And I've got something at some point, I've got a real mannequin. So So where does that where does that leave us? Because I think what we get confused about to me as a designer make activity that a teacher plans is a pedagogy. It's not curriculum, okay. What we've got to think about is what we're doing with the curriculum, what we're trying to get to, and we're developing to me, DNC capability, and this technological awareness, understanding interaction when able to be part of a democracy, and appreciate it, and also critique it. So you do have to give them opportunities to design and I think that happens from year one, right the way through to Year 11. And so I think they learn strategies, design strategies, how they can design, how they can generate designs, they can learn about writing specifications, what a spec does, you know, criteria, that there's different types of specs as they progress through, they can learn different ways of communicating does not mean they're design ideas. And this kind of comes back back to Nikki's talking about that externalisation and making the mark on the paper, that there's different ways of doing it for different purposes. I think it's for a teacher to design a scheme of work that is sometimes teaching those things in quite a structured way that they're then expected to use them as they're responding to a design context. And other times, it's more open ended, which may well lead more into an assessment than into a unit of work. That is where the children are given a context, which is kind of the NCAA, but I think we should be doing that in year three, year six, year eight, and nine as well as year 11. But the teacher is sophisticated in their thinking that they give parameters to that design context, so that they know that they're have been expected to draw on things that they've learned teen years one and years two, or four, and five, and so on, when they're being assessed. And I think that's the other thing that happens is we do these units of work schemes of work that are designed and make that on one level, people can't see this, but I'm waving my hands all over the place with different levels. But on one level, the teacher has planned a linear design process, which is false, but then assumes that the pupils are going to learn that process, which they don't, because we were not really explicitly telling them and it's false anyway, because there's no such thing as a linear design process. That when they do it, we don't give them enough ability to make choices to be autonomous. So they're not kind of drawing on things that they can go already from other projects from other parts of the quick, you know, design technology curriculum into this realistic thing. And then I'll tell you what was on all of that, and then let's layer on top of it or not, we're not giving them any design decisions, as you just talked about with your microbead not to criticise your mic, your mic, you know microcontrollers. But, you know, we're trying to do too many things. And then we give them any design decisions that are real, that are authentic. And then on top of that, you know, what was let's make sure we're gonna assess it along the way and you thinking how we can't we can't do all of that in one designer make which is then where the rotations kind of let down because then we kind of falsely and I've done it right, so I'm not kind of saying you know, little little doctors, you know, Doctor was perfect Hardy over here because I'm not right. I'm on the way, but I'm not you know. But, you know, we get we get stuck in this that every rotation has to be a full design and make

Amanda Mason: 25:38

that we are very much stuck in that yes or her completely agree.

Alison Hardy: 25:43

And so, so where do we wait? So I think I think a good design and technology curriculum is layered. And it has to be looked at in the long term. What are we building towards? Not in Key Stage Four in the key stage three National Career Because well, the key stage one and two national curriculum, let's look at those things in isolation. They are designed for progression themselves anyway. And that's all about a general education and all and all pupils. I feel like I'm becoming slightly incoherent now, you know, I mean that I'm kind of losing my thread through lots of Does that, does that make any sense to him?

Amanda Mason: 26:18

I know what I mean, it's clearly not essence. Yeah, I think you are completely right in the sense that it is not just a case of design and make and we are design and technology is something that is super important to all subjects across the school and can be linked to all subjects within the school. And then as a result, if we can make those connections as well, I'll make those links and draw upon that information. That knowledge that understanding, isn't that then what we're hoping that our future? Technologists become? I wouldn't say design as anymore, because we're not creating design, and

Alison Hardy: 26:53

what does that? Go? You know, I mean, I mean, I do have some dispute with parts of national curriculum, but we're creating educated citizens, we can all, you know, debate what I mean by an educated, I kind of take Michael rice and John White's view that it's about enabling young people to have a flourishing life and, and a by them having a flourishing life that they can enable other people to, as well. So I kind of that's that's kind of where I sit about my beliefs about education. I'm sure somebody will come back to me and go, that's really awfully. But yeah, so I think those things about design technology capability, technological awareness, understanding critique, is all about about flourishing. Yeah. You know, in, in, in the, in the broadest sense. Not just economically.

Amanda Mason: 27:47

If I can make a reference back to when you said about in key stage one, and key stage two, and then so on. And I've got two children that both been through primary school that are both in secondary school. And I remember them coming home, and telling me about the DT XB adiante experiences in primary school. And Oh, my word devastated, was designed to game. And I went, all right, a board game. And I was just like, so well, how will you how we asked to meet again, we just got given with no just got all the design again. So they weren't given any knowledge. They weren't given any understanding they weren't given. Also, a good game will have the starting point or finish might have begun. Certainly, there was no criteria, what it is that what good looks like, I know, I'm then going on to cases three rounds in an example. And that's not what I mean. But the We Still especially Key Stage One and Key Stage Two, they need to have some kind of understanding of how they can come up with these ideas.

Alison Hardy: 28:59

That some Blackhawks designs. Yes. You know, and

Amanda Mason: 29:03

that wasn't given it was just a just drawdown again. And I think

Alison Hardy: 29:07

I think we got to be fair to our primary colleagues, you know, in terms of No, no, so let's make it I didn't think you were white. But we've got to be careful here. Certainly,

Amanda Mason: 29:17

definitely. If your primary school teachers and that that's definitely not what I'm saying.

Alison Hardy: 29:22

No, but I just think, again, it's about the status a subject has in primary were things that are measured and things that aren't measured. And so the prioritisation but I, I have been picking up that actually, there's been quite a shift in primary schools in terms of the focus of design and technology. I mean, I'm getting more and more queries, myself from primary schools wanting me to do consultancy about, you know, their primary curriculum, which I'm not an expert on. There's a team of as at the university that we do design and technology consultancy, and I have a colleague Suzanne, who leads on that and there's more and more coming in, which I think is really exciting. Not just from our perspective, because we get more work but more from the perspective that people are recognising the importance of the subject in primary and recognising what what they want to do. But yeah, I just think I think we've got to meet a matt McLean talks about this in the in the debates book about that we've got to be careful that the design and make doesn't become the whole thing. Because actually, then it becomes a false thing. Because you know, it's not a design and make it's a mainly make, which is fine. But let's, let's call it, let's call it what it is. And I'm going to bring us back to Matt's chapter after you've put me on the spot and let me go off for a while.

Amanda Mason: 30:41

You put me on the spot at the beginning.

Alison Hardy: 30:44

It's my podcast. Yes, thanks. So I can't believe I've been given rope to hang myself there anyway. Anyway. So in terms of Nikki's idea about extended design cognition, how would you ask me what I really like to give this example isn't about sticky notes, and so on. But what I really like is that it's not just I mean, people go, Oh, we use sticky notes, we get kids to post stuff on post it notes and put it all over. But actually, he takes it further on, and you know, talks about them, putting it by theme, and coming up with ideas from that. And but also, then I really liked the fact that he, if we want to foster Extended Thinking, they have to return to them and reuse them throughout the various stages of them designing to, to support that extended thinking. And I thought that was really interesting. So I do think we do that sometimes in design and technology, we do a strategy. And then we don't go back to it, we don't kind of embed it within the activity, it's kind of like it's a, and again, I've done this, you know, done a single hit with something. And then it's not going to be embedded into children's ideas or minds about this is a strategy I can use and build on and develop. So that's what I did like that is, yeah, without this understanding that the sticky notes can be reused and revert returned to pupils might only use sticky notes as cognitive offloading devices without realising their potential to help extend their cognition.

Amanda Mason: 32:28

I do really like the suggestion that you gave actually, and I do think, I think there's a lot of time when we're trying to explain the knowledge that understanding the process, and that we are probably seeing things that they might not even understand. So instead of them trying to just store that in your mind in the mind, they can write it down, they can let exactly what it says they can offload these ideas, and then they can go back to it, and then ask those questions again. And so what was meant by this? And what then they can ask those more? Just the questions that they need to ask, like you were saying before, for each individual student, what is it each individual student was able to take from what you were saying? And then what was their interpretation? What is their understanding? And so on? So yeah, I do like that idea.

Alison Hardy: 33:18

Yeah. And it's about moving it beyond the cognitive offloading, and actually planning into your unit of work. But going back, isn't it, it's not just kind of letting it assuming it's going to happen. I think that's some of the thing that we're also doing Dante's we assume that because we've done it once children will know, or because they've they've done this activity once that they will remember, and it's kind of building that up. So that they realise they can go back to their designs, they can go back to their notes, they can go back to their modelling. I mean, it's not kind of like I've done it this week. And I'm moving on, I think sometimes that's our, our units of work sometimes kind of inhibit that. And then again, go back to the amount of time we have in the classroom.

Amanda Mason: 33:57

And I do think, because of the focus over the last few years within schools, and then this is happened within design and technology as well within our school. And retrieval practice is a huge. And so we are always referencing magazine. So if a designer gives you a client even gives you a brief, what is a brief, what is the specification? What is this? What's the aim? If we're going to do this? What's the properties of this material? So we are always trying to embed more knowledge. I'm always trying to go back to it. However, we can't go back to everything. Yeah. So we are always still restrained again, as always by time.

Alison Hardy: 34:39

Yeah. And I think that's back to this conversation. We started the beginning was, you know, what, what sufficient knowledge, you know, we can't we can't cover it all. So what's, what sufficient? Yeah, we have to kind of work that out so that we're not, we're not trying to do too much within it.

Amanda Mason: 34:56

And I think that goes back to me thinking possibly others as well, that this efficient knowledge is what the need for KY seed for unfortunately,

Alison Hardy: 35:06

yeah, yeah. Yeah, I know, it's kind of a little bit. A twinge a little bit about that. But I can I can understand why. Why that's happening. Why that's happening. Well, it's been a really good conversation. Amanda, I'll let you off that you asked me questions. And hopefully people have found that interesting. And give them a taste of going to have a look in that book chapter and, and get the history and to read some more of Nikki's work, you know, he's done other stuff, talking about this and expanding on this. So I'd have that get people thinking about where they teach knowledge when they do it when it's when it's outside and it's outside the body and it's social and material and when they combine the two so yeah, thank you very much thinking about

Amanda Mason: 35:47

reconsidering some of my schemes of work, come back. We'll see how we'll get along. Okay.

Alison Hardy: 35:52

All right. Well, we'll do that. You will be Thanks very much Amanda that's been great

Unknown: 36:01

no thank you as well as and thank you